Conventions of Agency Independence

52 Pages Posted: 11 Jul 2012 Last revised: 20 Oct 2012

Date Written: July 10, 2012

Abstract

It is often said that the legal touchstone of agency independence is whether the agency head or heads are removable at will, or only for cause. Yet this test does not adequately describe the landscape of agency independence. There are many important agencies who are conventionally treated as independent, yet whose heads lack for-cause tenure protection. Conversely, there are agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause tenure protection, yet are by all accounts thoroughly dependent upon organized interest groups, the White House, legislators and legislative committees, or all of these. Legally enforceable for-cause tenure protection is neither necessary nor sufficient for operational independence.

The crucial consideration, largely neglected in the literature, is the role of what Commonwealth lawyers call conventions. Agencies that lack for-cause tenure yet enjoy operative independence are protected by unwritten conventions that constrain political actors from attempting to remove their members, to direct their exercise of discretion, or both. Such conventions may be generated by a variety of mechanisms; the common feature is that norms arising within relevant legal and political communities impose sanctions for violations of agency independence or create beliefs or internalized moral strictures protecting that independence. Conversely, where agencies enjoy statutory independence yet lack operative independence, the reason is that the interaction among relevant political actors has failed to generate any such set of protective conventions.

The lens of convention helps resolve a range of puzzles about the behavior of Presidents, legislators, judges and other actors with respect to agency independence – including the Supreme Court’s puzzling treatment of SEC independence in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB.By bringing the conventional character of agency independence to the surface, U.S. courts may begin to incorporate ideas from the courts of Commonwealth legal systems – such as the United Kingdom and Canada – that are familiar with the promise and problems of conventions and with the methods for harmonizing conventions with written rules of law. My principal suggestion is that U.S. courts interpreting statutes and constitutional rules that bear on agency independence should adopt the leading Commonwealth approach, according to which judges may indirectly “recognize” conventions and incorporate them into their interpretation of written law, although they may not directly enforce conventions as freestanding obligations.

Suggested Citation

Vermeule, Adrian, Conventions of Agency Independence (July 10, 2012). Columbia Law Review, Forthcoming; Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 12-32. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2103338 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2103338

Adrian Vermeule (Contact Author)

Harvard Law School ( email )

1525 Massachusetts
Griswold 500
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
325
rank
90,688
Abstract Views
1,754
PlumX Metrics
!

Under construction: SSRN citations while be offline until July when we will launch a brand new and improved citations service, check here for more details.

For more information