Health Care

Becker v. Dane County

In Becker v. Dane County, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is considering whether local health officials can be given the authority to issue orders combatting the spread of communicable diseases like COVID-19

Case Summary

A Wisconsin statute gives local officials broad authority to “do what is reasonable and necessary for the prevention and suppression of disease.” In accordance with this law and with a local ordinance, Dane County’s Director of Public Health issued an order to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 that prohibits mass gatherings and close-contact sport activities. A local business and two residents sued to challenge the order. They argue, among other things, that giving health officials the authority to issue such orders violates Wisconsin’s constitution by impermissibly delegating legislative authority to them. After a court ruled in favor of the health department, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Along with Law Forward and Stafford Rosenbaum LLC, CAC filed an amicus brief supporting Dane County on behalf of Julian Davis Mortenson, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and a leading scholar on constitutional history relating to legislative delegations of authority. The plaintiffs challenging the COVID order rely heavily on discussions of the “nondelegation doctrine” under the U.S. Constitution, which they analogize to Wisconsin’s constitution. Our brief shows, however, that no such doctrine exists under the original understanding of the U.S. Constitution.

As the brief explains, at the time of the Founding, legislatures across the Anglo-American world had a long tradition of delegating broad discretionary rulemaking authority to agents, who were not regarded as impermissibly “making law” when they exercised that authority. Consistent with theory and precedent, legislative delegations were a pervasive feature of state governance in America, both before and after Independence.

Moreover, during the first decade after ratification of the Constitution, Congress repeatedly approved sweeping delegations of policymaking authority over the most crucial issues facing the young nation, including giving the president the power to aid quarantine efforts “in such manner as may to him appear necessary.” In short, delegating broad authority to the executive branch was not rare in the nation’s early history—it was routine.

To explain away the powerful evidence of early congressional enactments, proponents of a strict nondelegation doctrine have devised various artificial limiting principles—arguing, for example, that Congress may delegate the authority to “fill in the details” but not to resolve “important” subjects. These distinctions, as we show, are entirely a modern invention. No one articulated them in the Founding era, and the historical record refutes the claim that these distinctions mattered to the Founders when it came to legislative delegations.

The Constitution’s original meaning, in sum, provides no basis for a strict nondelegation doctrine. As a result, the plaintiffs in this case gain no support for their position by drawing comparisons between Wisconsin’s constitution and its federal counterpart.

Case Timeline

  • February 22, 2022

    CAC files amicus brief with Law Forward and Stafford Rosenbaum on behalf of Julian Davis Mortenson in Wisconsin Supreme Court

    WI Sup. Ct. Amicus
  • March 8, 2022

    Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral argument

More from Health Care

Health Care
April 29, 2022

SCOTUS Ruling Curtailing Bias Remedies Goes Beyond Health Care

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Thursday that federal anti-bias laws don’t allow plaintiffs to recover damages for...
By: Smita Ghosh, By Mary Anne Pazanowski
Health Care
January 13, 2022

RELEASE: Supreme Court Wrong to Stand in OSHA’s Way of Protecting American Workers from COVID-19

WASHINGTON – Following today’s ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in NFIB v. OSHA, staying...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Health Care
January 7, 2022

CAC Alert: OSHA Policy on COVID-19 Vaccination or Testing

Is the OSHA policy that imposes vaccination-or-test requirements on employers with 100 or more employees...
By: Smita Ghosh
Health Care
January 7, 2022

RELEASE: Justices Hear Challenge to OSHA Vaccinate-Or-Test Policy

WASHINGTON – Following oral argument in the Supreme Court in NFIB v. OSHA, Constitutional Accountability...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Health Care
December 17, 2021

RELEASE: Federal Appeals Court Allows OSHA Vaccinate-Or-Test Policy to Take Effect

WASHINGTON – On news of a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Health Care
U.S. Supreme Court

National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (In Re: OSHA Rule on COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing)

In In re: OSHA Rule on COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing, the Supreme Court considered whether to stay the vaccinate-or-test policy that OSHA had adopted for employers with 100 or more employees.