Vol. 42:179This Article describes the constitutional history of public utility regulation to
make sense of apparent puzzles and inconsistencies in modern administrative
law. In chronicling this history, we first show that utilities’ special constitutional
right to challenge regulations on substantive-due-process grounds
is based on a public-private distinction that courts have otherwise rejected.
Second, we argue that modern efforts to invoke Article III to restrict agency
adjudication do not reflect a consistent understanding of the public-private
distinction, but instead revive the distinction in some contexts (adjudication)
but not others (rulemaking). Third, we provide a new framework for understanding
the Supreme Court’s turn to structural arguments to check administrative
agencies. On the last point: for nearly five decades prior to 1935,
courts used rights-based arguments, not structural ones such as the nondelegation
doctrine, to deduce the scope and content of the legislative, executive,
and judicial powers. Once the Supreme Court abandoned its freedom-ofcontract
jurisprudence, it was a public utility case that breathed new life into
the nondelegation doctrine. Public utilities were a natural battle ground for
reshaping the public law of administration. Like today, private rights, delegation,
and agency adjudication were all central preoccupations of this public
utility moment, but the frameworks courts advanced to answer these puzzles
have vanished from our modern debate. Today’s administrative law
thus reflects an ad hoc revival of public utility legal concepts, and it reinvents
these concepts such that they bear little resemblance to their public utility
genealogy
Is data on this page outdated, violates copyrights or anything else? Report the problem now and we will take corresponding actions after reviewing your request.