Over the years, courts have applied several legal principles to limit the apparent exercise of authority by an administrative agency. One of the well-established principles is that an administrative agency has only those powers delegated to it by the statutes creating it. In other words, the agency's actions must be within the statutory scope of its jurisdiction and authority.
Another principle of administrative law is that an agency must follow its own rules. This concept, in effect, is one of procedural due process.
A Washington, DC, federal District Court decision issued this week arguably illustrates application of these two principles. The Court reviewed new, more stringent water quality standards promulgated by EPA to deal with mineral deposits in streams resulting from mountain top removal surface coal mining. The mining industry allegedly argued that the new standards were not issued in compliance with the agency's own rule making procedures, which include a requirement for formal notice and opportunity for public comment.
The District Court accepted the industry position and, in addition, in effect held that the agency exceeded its authority under the Clean Water Act. Interestingly, earlier this year another Washington District Court held that, when EPA revoked a permit for a mountain top removal mine, it exceeded its authority.
Recall that earlier this year, the Supreme Court rejected EPA's arguments to the contrary and held that there is a right to judicial review of EPA's compliance orders. That decision, along with the District Courts' opinions discussed above, appear to demonstrate the continuing importance of judicial restraints on agency actions which exceed its authority and may deny due process.
No comments:
Post a Comment