Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 537.0

524US2

Unit: $U93

[09-11-00 13:25:43] PAGES PGT: OPIN

492

CLINTON v. CITY OF NEW YORK

Breyer, J., dissenting

“We ﬁnd no support . . . for [the] contention that the
text of the Constitution or the practices of Congress re-
quire the application of a different and stricter nondele-
gation doctrine in cases where Congress delegates dis-
cretionary authority to the Executive under its taxing
power. . . . Even if the user fees are a form of taxation,
we hold that the delegation of discretionary authority
under Congress’ taxing power is subject to no constitu-
tional scrutiny greater than that we have applied to
other nondelegation challenges. Congress may wisely
choose to be more circumspect in delegating authority
under the Taxing Clause than under other of its enumer-
ated powers, but this is not a heightened degree of pru-
Id., at 221–223.
dence required by the Constitution.”

For another thing, this Court has upheld tax statutes that
delegate to the President the power to change taxes under
for example, Congress
In 1890,
very broad standards.
authorized the President to “suspend” the provisions of the
tariff statute, thereby raising tariff rates, if the President
determined that other nations were imposing “reciprocally
unequal and unreasonable” tariff rates on specialized com-
modities. Act of Oct. 1, 1890, ch. 1244, § 3, 26 Stat. 612.
And the Court upheld the statute against constitutional at-
tack. Field v. Clark, 143 U. S., at 693–694 (“[N]o valid ob-
jection can be made” to such statutes “conferring authority
or discretion” on the President) (internal quotation marks
omitted); see also Act of Dec. 19, 1806, ch. 1, 2 Stat. 411 (Pres-
ident “authorized” to “suspend the operation of ” a customs
law “if in his judgment the public interest should require
it”); Act of June 4, 1794, ch. 41, § 1, 1 Stat. 372 (empowering
President to lay an embargo on ships in ports “whenever, in
his opinion, the public safety shall so require” and to revoke
related regulations “whenever he shall think proper”).
In
1922 Congress gave the President the authority to adjust
tariff rates to “equalize” the differences in costs of produc-
tion at home and abroad, see Tariff Act of 1922, ch. 356,