norml23 - Page 72

Page 72 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 woutd make such a "sweeping deJegation of
 legislative power" that it might be
 unconstitutiona_ under the Court's reasonhg in
 Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S.
 495, 539 (1935), and Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan,
 293 U.S. 388 (1935)o A construction of the statute
 that avoids this kind of open-ended grant should
 certainJy be favored°
 U.S. , 100 S.Ct. at 2866.
 Chief Justice Burger, in addition to concurring in the plurality
 opinion, wrote separately to "stress the differing functions of the
 courts and the administrative agency with respect to such health and
 safety regulations." Ido at 2874. The Chief Justice noted that
 "Congress is the uttimate regulator," and that the court's function is
 to interpret the statute and its implementing regulations "with the
 objective of insuring that in promulgating health and safety standards
 the Secretary has given reasoned consideration to each of the pertinent
 factors and has complied with statutory commands°" (Citation omitted.)
 The Chief Justice closed his brief concurring opinion-with the warning
 IT]he Secretary is west admonished to remember that
 a heavy responsibility burdens his authority.
 Inherent in this statutory scheme is authority to
 refrain from regulation of insignificant or de
 minimis risks.
 Mr. Justice Powell also concurred Jn most of the plurality
 opinion, but began his separate concurrence by stating that he did not
 necessarily agree with the piurality's characterizi_tions of the
 findings tendered by the Agency, and by noting aiso that he was
 reserving judgment on whether granting OSHA the latitude that it
 desired would violate the nondelegation doctrine of Schechter Poultry
 and Panama Refining. The thrust of Powell's concurrence reflects even
 more stringent scrutiny of OSHA's actual findings, on the ground that
 the agency did not even attempt to carry its burden of proof on the
 threshold question of significance of risk, Mr. Justice Powell held
 that OSHA had tried to meet that burden, but had failed to do so. Id.
 at 2876-2877.

Previous , Next , Return to Index