Redman v. Ohio Department of Industrial Relations
662 N.E.2d 352, 75 Ohio St. 3d 399 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute that confers discretion upon an administrative agency without providing detailed standards is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power if it establishes an intelligible principle to guide the agency and it is impracticable to provide more specific standards.
Facts:
- Redman applied for permits to drill new oil and gas wells.
- The proposed well sites were located in a designated 'coal-bearing township'.
- Per statute, the permit applications were transmitted to the Chief of the Division of Mines (ODM).
- The Chief of ODM notified COCCo, a coal company that planned to mine in the area in the future, of Redman's applications.
- COCCo timely objected to the issuance of the permits.
- The Chief of ODM found COCCo's objection to be 'well founded' and disapproved Redman's permit applications.
- Redman had preexisting wells operating on the same leases where the new wells were proposed.
- Since Redman's previous wells were approved, COCCo had been forced to alter its mining plans due to new environmental regulations and economic factors.
Procedural Posture:
- Redman's applications for oil and gas well permits were disapproved by the Chief of the Division of Mines (ODM).
- Redman appealed the disapproval to the Mine Examining Board, which upheld the Chief's decision.
- Redman sought further review in the Ohio court system.
- The Ohio Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) affirmed the decisions below, ruling against Redman.
- Redman appealed the Court of Appeals' decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does R.C. 1509.08, which grants the Chief of the Division of Mines discretion to disapprove an oil or gas well permit based on a 'well founded' objection from an 'affected mine' without defining those terms, constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority?
Opinions:
Majority - Resnick, J.
No. R.C. 1509.08 does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority. A statute can grant discretion to an agency without highly specific standards if providing such standards is impracticable and the legislature has established an intelligible principle to guide the agency's decision-making. The court reasoned that while the non-delegation doctrine prevents unbridled agency discretion, a rigid application is unworkable. The court applied the 'impracticability exception' from Matz v. J.L. Curtis Cartage Co., which allows for broader discretion when detailed standards are impossible or would defeat the legislative goal, especially in complex areas like the conservation of natural resources. Although R.C. 1509.08 lacks definitions for 'affected mine' or 'well founded,' guiding principles are found in the broader statutory scheme for mining and coal development. These principles—including safety, conservation, maximum resource utilization, and prevention of waste—constitute an 'intelligible principle' sufficient to guide the Chief's discretion. Requiring more specific standards would be impracticable due to the site-specific and variable nature of conflicts between oil drilling and coal mining. The availability of administrative and judicial review provides an effective check against arbitrary agency action.
Dissenting - Douglas, J.
The opinion notes that Justice Douglas dissents but provides no accompanying text or reasoning for the dissent.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Ohio's flexible approach to the non-delegation doctrine, prioritizing administrative workability over rigid formal requirements. It solidifies the 'impracticability exception' as a key tool for upholding statutes that regulate complex, variable fields like natural resources. The ruling instructs that courts should look to the entire statutory framework for 'intelligible principles' to guide an agency, rather than invalidating a law based on the absence of specific standards in a single section. This makes it more difficult to mount a successful facial challenge to a legislative delegation, especially where a process for administrative and judicial review exists to check the agency's discretion.
