Approaching Hypothetical Cases in Administrative Law

This document discusses the approach to hypothetical cases in administrative law, focusing on legislation, controlled drugs, penalties, and the adjudication process. It explores the delegation of legislative powers and the challenges in drawing the line. It also discusses the delegation of authority to a drug enforcement agency and the need for balance and discretion. Recommendations for reducing excessive delegation and political reforms are also provided.

Running Head: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 1
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Student’s Name
Course
Professor’s Name
University
Date

2
Task 1
The most appropriate way of approaching this hypothetical is to clearly lay out what
has been it states. This will assist in understanding what important issues are present in these
cases.
• Legislation that intends to create a new state department of drug enforcement.
• Establishing a set of controlled drugs.
• Coming up with new rules about the penalties for the possession and use of controlled drugs
• Coming up with a proper process of adjudicating cases that involve violators of the set
rules.
It has been identified and sometimes declared that it is impossible to delegate
legislative powers. However, in this cases, it can be recognised that even though the state
legislator holds powers that might appear strictly exclusive to his legislative obligations, he
can “delegate powers which may rightfully exercise itself” (Delegation Reconsidered, p14).
The delegation of drug enforcement laws is a framework that can rightfully exercise itself. In
an increasingly complex society complete with ever changing and more technical issues, it is
hard for the state legislator to do his job of drug enforcement without the ability to delegate
only under broad and general directives.
The biggest issues in the process of delegating such a huge matter are where he
should draw the line. It is often hard to discern the exact limits and that the precise boundary
of such responsibilities is a subject of delicate order in which both parties need not enter
unnecessarily. According to the Article I, Section I, of the U.S. Constitution, the solutions of
delegation in all but most extreme and to accept delegation of vast responsibilities to the
higher administrative agencies. The assumption, in this case, is that the utility functions of the

3
state legislator are asymmetric. This implies that while every legislator is always a risk-averse
when delegating some of the roles , he might be more risk-averse of the expected results from
the new legislation, if to the left of his ideal points than if it is so to the right and vice versa.
Task 2
It is evident that a drug enforcement agency has been delegated the authority to do a
number of things .This helps in defining delegation of authority in this hypothetical ,and
identify where the power of delegation is coming from . It is clear that there has to be an
optimum balance of delegation and discretion .Therefore, it is important to have such kind of
balance in order to ensure that the state legislator does not misuse his delegation powers.
Inevitably of granting discretionary powers to the legislators, it is necessary that new
regulations be formulated in order to indicate when one should not exercise delegation.
Another recommendation is that the state legislator should apply explicit statutory
provisions that would provide him binding guidelines to the agency. If the hierarchical
subordinate (which in this cases is a state department) clarifies that is constitutionally proper
for them to receive guidelines from the superior in a proper way, then it is appropriate to
exercise discretion as per the guidelines of the state legislator.
Superior powers should establish robust delegation doctrines that would
encourage state legislators to reduce excessive delegation(U.S. Senate, p16).For instance ,
the state legislator has given a subordinates the responsibility to enter into an agreement
with a private agency and establish a system of incarceration facilities, to which
violators of the set rules might be sentenced upon found guilty. As you can see , this is
excessive delegation which might be viewed as improper . Previously, courts have been
willing to replace any political checks with more complex tests. Therefore , the superior

4
party, in this case should create a test limit commandeering the subordinate some
political safeguards that would sufficiently present the delegation as proper .
Further , the state legislator should look into the issues through political
reforms .Possible channel include public disclosure of contact with the subordinate and
the agency officials in an effort to discourage development of collusion allegations .This
can also be achieved through restructuring of the roles of the delegation in order to align
with the incentives set in the rule of law . By doing so , the state legislator will retain his
collective power that might be diminished once he hands the responsibilities to the
agency. It is important to note that legislator who delegate such interpretive powers must
choose an agency to whom they intend to delegate .By doing this it is much to choose
which policy lottery they can enter .One of the basic decisions that should be made by
any legislator in this regard is whether to delegate to an agency or not.

5
References
Delegation Reconsidered: A delegation doctrine for the Modern Administrative State:
Retrieved from
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1poMaVXHwBvA6A7HszXFuGTZOd1B8ABG/view
? usp=sharing
U.S. Senate: Active Legislation - Senate.gov: Active Legislation 116th Congress (2019-2020)
March 14, 2019: Retrieved from:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/active_leg_page.htm