Articles

The Constitution and the long rise of administrative power

When the delegates gathered in Philadelphia in 1787, they produced a document that said a great deal about legislatures, courts, and executives, yet said nothing at all about administrative agencies. That silence was not an oversight so much as a reflection of the world they knew. Government in the eighteenth century was small, and the framers expected it to stay that way. The administrative state that emerged over the following two centuries, vast in scope, sprawling in rulemaking, and armed with quasi-judicial powers, would have struck them as foreign terrain.

Modern readers in Canberra, Sydney, or Melbourne will recognise familiar tensions. Australia built its own administrative law tradition after Federation, with the High Court drawing lines around Chapter III and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal reshaping how citizens challenge bureaucratic decisions. The story differs in important ways, yet the underlying question travels well across the Pacific. When a constitution speaks of separated functions, how much lawmaking power can it delegate to unelected officials, and what happens when the answer drifts toward "quite a lot"?

The founding silence on bureaucratic power

The U.S. Constitution distributes authority with care. Article I vests all legislative powers in a Congress. Article II places the executive power in a President. Article III extends the judicial power to judges appointed under specific procedures. Nowhere in the text is there a clear home for the modern regulatory agency, a body that writes rules, prosecutes violations, and adjudicates disputes under one organisational roof.

The early Republic offered little hint of what was coming. George Washington's first cabinet consisted of four departments: State, Treasury, War, and Attorney General. These were modest operations handling correspondence, revenue, and military administration. The entire federal workforce numbered in the hundreds. The framers expected that most governance would happen at the state level, and that federal authority would remain narrow.

This expectation proved fragile almost immediately. The Bank of the United States, the early customs service, and the Army Corps of Engineers all stretched the original design. By the time of the Jacksonian era, the Whigs were already campaigning on the promise of internal improvements and a more active national government. The constitutional text had not changed, but the assumptions behind it were shifting underfoot.

The progressive push for regulatory commissions

The late nineteenth century brought industrial scale that the founders could not have imagined. Railroads spanned continents. Trusts aggregated capital. The financial panic of 1907 demonstrated how contagion could spread through a banking system that no single state could regulate effectively. Congress responded with bodies that looked nothing like the departments of 1789.

The Interstate Commerce Commission, established in 1887, became the template. It could set rates, investigate complaints, and issue orders binding on private carriers. The Federal Trade Commission followed in 1914, tasked with policing unfair methods of competition. These were not mere advisory bodies. They combined legislative, executive, and judicial functions in ways that seemed to defy the tidy separation the Constitution appeared to demand.

The legal academy wrestled with the implications. Some scholars argued that delegation of rulemaking authority violated Article I. Others contended that Congress could hardly exercise its powers in detail and that some subsidiary lawmaking was inevitable. The debate foreshadowed the great constitutional crisis that would arrive two decades later, and it set the terms for how courts would, or would not, police the boundary between lawmaking and administration.

The New Deal and the constitutional crisis

The Great Depression broke the old equilibrium. Franklin Roosevelt's administration created agencies at a pace that dwarfed anything before: the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and dozens more. Each required statutory language broad enough to address problems that Congress could not anticipate, from securities fraud to labor relations to regional development.

The Supreme Court pushed back. Decisions striking down portions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the National Industrial Recovery Act suggested that the Constitution still placed real constraints on delegation. In 1935 and 1936, the Court invalidated key New Deal programs, prompting Roosevelt's court-packing plan and a constitutional confrontation of the highest order.

The crisis resolved through what historians call the switch in time that saved nine. Justice Owen Roberts began voting to uphold regulatory statutes, and the Court thereafter deferred to legislative judgments about the scope of agency power. The nondelegation principle, once thought to be a live constraint, fell into desuetude. For the next half century, Congress could hand agencies remarkably open-ended authority, and the courts would look the other way.

The delegation doctrine and its modern critics

The constitutional text had not changed, but the interpretive equilibrium had shifted dramatically. Article I still says that all legislative powers herein shall be vested in a Congress. Yet for decades, the practical reality was that agencies wrote the rules that governed much of economic life. Banking regulators, environmental administrators, and securities officials filled the statute books with binding norms.

That equilibrium is now under stress. The Supreme Court has grown increasingly skeptical of broad delegations, and recent decisions have hinted that the era of unconditional deference may be ending. Legal scholars across the ideological spectrum have rediscovered the nondelegation principle. The argument runs that if the Constitution vests legislative power in Congress, then Congress must do the legislating, or at least set intelligible principles that constrain agency discretion.

The practical stakes are enormous. Consider lender liability, a field where administrative pronouncements and judicial rulings interact in complex ways. Understanding how agencies exercise delegated authority is essential for any practitioner navigating modern financial regulation. For a deeper look at historical cases that shaped this area, forgotten lender liability cases offers a window into how doctrine evolved through agency action and court response.

Australian parallels and the comparative lens

Australian constitutional lawyers will recognise much of this story, though the specifics differ. The Australian Constitution, drafted in the 1890s and taking effect in 1901, also says little about administrative bodies. Chapter III limits judicial power, and the High Court has used that chapter to police the boundary between adjudication and administration. The landmark decision in Re Tracey refined the requirement that judicial power be exercised only by courts.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, established in 1976 and reshaped several times since, gives citizens a general merits review mechanism that has no exact American counterpart. Australians expect a fair go from government decision-makers, and the tribunal system reflects that expectation. When a visa is refused or a benefits payment is denied, the affected person can usually have the decision reviewed by an independent tribunal rather than fighting through the courts.

The differences are instructive as well. Australia's constitutional monarchy and parliamentary sovereignty mean that delegation questions arise in a different institutional context. Ministers are responsible to Parliament, and the conventions of responsible government shape how discretionary power is exercised. American debates about the unitary executive have no precise Australian analogue, though the underlying concerns about accountability and the rule of law are remarkably similar.

Practical considerations for modern practitioners

The administrative state is not standing still, and neither is the law that surrounds it. Courts are revisiting old doctrines, agencies are adapting to new constraints, and practitioners are recalibrating strategies that worked for decades. Several habits serve lawyers well as these changes work through the system. The following points are worth keeping in mind.

These reflections touch on one more resource worth mentioning. Readers who want a broader view of how legal doctrine evolves through administrative and judicial action can explore Along the Beam site, which gathers writing on regulatory history and the long arc of American governance.