Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. , 531 US 457 (2001), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Environmental Ambient Air Agency of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Quality Standard (NAAQS) to regulate ozone and particulate matter is challenged by the American Trucking Association along with other private companies and the State of Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia. The Supreme Court faces the issue of whether the legislation has legislative powers delegated delegated to the agency, and whether EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman can consider implementation costs in setting national ambient air quality standards.
Video Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc.
​​â € <â €
Article 109 (b) (1) of the CAA (Clean Air Act) instructs the EPA to establish "the ambient air quality standards of achievement and maintenance that are within the Administrator's judgment, based on [criteria] [documents of Section 108] and allow adequate security margins, which needed to protect public health. "The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the standard-setting procedure delegated by Congress to the EPA to regulate air quality is an unconstitutional delegation that goes against Article I, Part I of the US Constitution because the EPA has interpreted laws to provide" no understandable principle "to guide the authority of agency authorities. He also found that the EPA can not consider the cost of implementing national ambient air quality standards.
Maps Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc.
Court Opinion
In the opinion of Judge Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court partially confirmed and annulled some of the Court of Appeal's decisions. The Court affirms that the text of Article 109 (b) expressly prohibits the cost consideration of the NAAQS determination process. The Court then held, "[b] Whether the law delegates legislative powers is a question for the court, and voluntary self-denial by the body has nothing to do with the answer," and that the scope of the policy of Article 109 (b) (1) within the outer limits of the nondelegated precedent. As a result, the Court returned the Court of Appeal case to reinterpret laws that would avoid delegating legislative powers.
Concurrent opinion
Judge Clarence Thomas wrote a separate agreement. He is not convinced that the eligible criterion of principles serves to prevent all leave of legislative power. Justice Thomas believes that there are cases where the principle itself can be understood, but the significance of the delegated decision is too great for a decision to be called anything other than the legislature. He stated that he would be willing to reconsider the introduction of the delegation in the future to determine whether the jurisprudence of the delegation had strayed too far from the Founder's understanding of the separation of powers. Judge John Paul Stevens also wrote a separate agreement, followed by Souter Judge.
See also
- List of US Supreme Court cases, volume 531
- List of US Supreme Court cases
Further reading
-
, Robert A.; Mellor, William H. (2008). "Lawmaking by the Administration Agent". The Dirty Dozen: How The Twelve Cases of the Supreme Radical Rule Expanded and the Horrible Freedom . New York: Sentinel. p. 67-88. ISBN 978-1-59523-050-8. Ã,
External links
- Text Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. , 531 US 457 (2001) is available from: Findlaw Ã, Justia
- Summary of cases from OYEZ
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments