Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute
Encyclopedia
Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute (The Benzene Case), , was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court
. This case represented a challenge to the OSHA
practice of regulating carcinogen
s by setting the exposure limit "at the lowest technologically feasible level that will not impair the viability of the industries regulated." OSHA selected that standard because it believed that (1) it could not determine a safe exposure level and that (2) the authorizing statute did not require it to quantify such a level. A plurality on the Court, led by Justice Stevens, wrote that the authorizing statute did indeed require OSHA to demonstrate a significant risk of harm (albeit not with mathematical certainty) in order to justify setting a particular exposure level.
Perhaps more importantly, the Court noted in dicta that if the government's interpretation of the authorizing statute had been correct, it might violate the Nondelegation doctrine
. This line of reasoning may represent the "high-water mark" of recent attempts to revive the doctrine.
of 1970 delegated broad authority to the Secretary of Labor
to promulgate standards to ensure safe and healthful working conditions for the Nation's workers (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
being the agency responsible for carrying out this authority). According to Section 3(8), standards created by the secretary must be “reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment”. Section 6(b)(5) of the statute sets the principle for creating the safety regulations, directing the Secretary to “set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity…”. At issue in the case, is the Secretary's interpretation of "extent feasible" to mean that if a material is unsafe he must “set an exposure limit at the lowest technologically feasible level that will not impair the viability of the industries regulated.”
when workers were exposed at 1 part per million. Data only suggested the chemical was unsafe at 10 parts per million. Thus, the secretary had failed the first step of interpreting the statute, that is, finding that the substance posed a risk at that level.
In its reasoning, the Court noted it would be unreasonable to assume that congress intended to give the Secretary “unprecedented power over American industry”. Such a delegation of power would likely be unconstitutional. The court also cited the legislative history of the act, which suggested that congress meant to address major workplace hazards, not hazards with low statistical likelihoods.
, holds that Congress cannot delegate law-making authority to other branches of government. Rehnquist offered three rationales for the application of the non-delegation doctrine. First, ensure Congress makes social policy, not agencies; delegation should only be used when the policy is highly technical or the ground too large to be covered. Second, agencies of the delegated authority require an “intelligible principle” to exercise discretion which was lacking in this case. Third, the intelligible principle must provide judges with a measuring stick for judicial review.
The case also marks the current state of affairs for the non-delegation doctrine. When the court is faced with a provision that appears to be an impermissible delegation of the authority, it will use tools of statutory interpretation to try to narrow the delegation of power.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
. This case represented a challenge to the OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration is an agency of the United States Department of Labor. It was created by Congress of the United States under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, signed by President Richard M. Nixon, on December 29, 1970...
practice of regulating carcinogen
Carcinogen
A carcinogen is any substance, radionuclide, or radiation that is an agent directly involved in causing cancer. This may be due to the ability to damage the genome or to the disruption of cellular metabolic processes...
s by setting the exposure limit "at the lowest technologically feasible level that will not impair the viability of the industries regulated." OSHA selected that standard because it believed that (1) it could not determine a safe exposure level and that (2) the authorizing statute did not require it to quantify such a level. A plurality on the Court, led by Justice Stevens, wrote that the authorizing statute did indeed require OSHA to demonstrate a significant risk of harm (albeit not with mathematical certainty) in order to justify setting a particular exposure level.
Perhaps more importantly, the Court noted in dicta that if the government's interpretation of the authorizing statute had been correct, it might violate the Nondelegation doctrine
Nondelegation doctrine
The doctrine of nondelegation describes the theory that one branch of government must not authorize another entity to exercise the power or function which it is constitutionally authorized to exercise itself. It is explicit or implicit in all written constitutions that impose a strict structural...
. This line of reasoning may represent the "high-water mark" of recent attempts to revive the doctrine.
Background
The Occupational Safety and Health ActOccupational Safety and Health Act
The Occupational Safety and Health Act is the primary federal law which governs occupational health and safety in the private sector and federal government in the United States. It was enacted by Congress in 1970 and was signed by President Richard Nixon on December 29, 1970...
of 1970 delegated broad authority to the Secretary of Labor
United States Secretary of Labor
The United States Secretary of Labor is the head of the Department of Labor who exercises control over the department and enforces and suggests laws involving unions, the workplace, and all other issues involving any form of business-person controversies....
to promulgate standards to ensure safe and healthful working conditions for the Nation's workers (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration is an agency of the United States Department of Labor. It was created by Congress of the United States under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, signed by President Richard M. Nixon, on December 29, 1970...
being the agency responsible for carrying out this authority). According to Section 3(8), standards created by the secretary must be “reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment”. Section 6(b)(5) of the statute sets the principle for creating the safety regulations, directing the Secretary to “set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity…”. At issue in the case, is the Secretary's interpretation of "extent feasible" to mean that if a material is unsafe he must “set an exposure limit at the lowest technologically feasible level that will not impair the viability of the industries regulated.”
Opinion of the Court
The Court held the Secretary applied the act inappropriately. To comply with the statute, the secretary must determine 1) that a health risk of a substance exists at a particular threshold and 2) Decide whether to issue the most protective standard, or issue a standard that weighs the costs and benefits. Here, the secretary failed to first determine that a health risk of substance existed for the chemical benzeneBenzene
Benzene is an organic chemical compound. It is composed of 6 carbon atoms in a ring, with 1 hydrogen atom attached to each carbon atom, with the molecular formula C6H6....
when workers were exposed at 1 part per million. Data only suggested the chemical was unsafe at 10 parts per million. Thus, the secretary had failed the first step of interpreting the statute, that is, finding that the substance posed a risk at that level.
In its reasoning, the Court noted it would be unreasonable to assume that congress intended to give the Secretary “unprecedented power over American industry”. Such a delegation of power would likely be unconstitutional. The court also cited the legislative history of the act, which suggested that congress meant to address major workplace hazards, not hazards with low statistical likelihoods.
Concurring opinion
In a famous concurrence, Justice Rehnquist argued that the section 6(b)(5) of the statute, which set forth the "extent feasible" principle, should be struck down on the basis of the non-delegation doctrine. The non-delegation doctrine, which has been recognized by the Supreme Court since the era of Chief Justice MarshallJohn Marshall
John Marshall was the Chief Justice of the United States whose court opinions helped lay the basis for American constitutional law and made the Supreme Court of the United States a coequal branch of government along with the legislative and executive branches...
, holds that Congress cannot delegate law-making authority to other branches of government. Rehnquist offered three rationales for the application of the non-delegation doctrine. First, ensure Congress makes social policy, not agencies; delegation should only be used when the policy is highly technical or the ground too large to be covered. Second, agencies of the delegated authority require an “intelligible principle” to exercise discretion which was lacking in this case. Third, the intelligible principle must provide judges with a measuring stick for judicial review.
Subsequent developments
Most scholars have said that the interpretation of statute ignored a foundational principle of statutory interpretation. Generally, specific language governs general language. In this case, the court read the more general provision of Section 3(8) as governing the specific process specified in Section 6(b)(5).The case also marks the current state of affairs for the non-delegation doctrine. When the court is faced with a provision that appears to be an impermissible delegation of the authority, it will use tools of statutory interpretation to try to narrow the delegation of power.