State v. King
257 N.W.2d 693, 1977 Minn. LEXIS 1454 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legislature may constitutionally delegate authority to an administrative agency to determine facts that will make a statute effective, such as adding substances to a controlled substances list, provided the legislature furnishes a reasonably clear policy or standard of action to guide the agency.
Facts:
- On July 6, 1973, the federal government designated the drug phentermine as a Schedule IV controlled substance.
- Following a public hearing, the Minnesota State Board of Pharmacy (board) acted pursuant to its statutory authority to align with federal law.
- On November 8, 1974, the board filed a regulation that officially designated phentermine as a controlled substance in Minnesota.
- On April 21, 1976, King was found to be in possession of phentermine.
- Subsequent to King being charged, the Minnesota legislature amended the statute to expressly include phentermine as a Schedule IV drug.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged King with unlawful possession of phentermine.
- King filed a motion in the trial court to dismiss the complaint.
- The trial court granted King's motion to dismiss, finding the legislature did not intend to, and could not constitutionally, delegate such authority to the board.
- The State, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order of dismissal to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
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 the Minnesota legislature's delegation of authority to the State Board of Pharmacy to add substances to the statutory schedules of controlled substances, thereby making possession of such substances a crime, constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power?
Opinions:
Majority - Rogosheske, Justice.
No, the delegation of authority to the State Board of Pharmacy does not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. While the legislature may not delegate the authority to make a complete law, it may authorize an administrative body to determine the facts that will make a statute effective. The legislature provided the board with a clear policy and specific standards to guide its decision-making, such as the substance's potential for abuse, its pharmacological effects, and the risk to public health. By directing the board to follow the elaborate rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act, the legislature clearly intended to grant it authority beyond merely making recommendations. Since the board was employed only to ascertain facts that would make the existing drug control statute operational, the delegation was constitutional. The defendant had constructive notice because the regulation was properly filed and the drug was listed in the Federal Register.
Dissenting - Otis, Justice
Yes, for practical purposes, the delegation is unconstitutional because it resulted in a denial of adequate notice that violates due process. To define criminal conduct through an administrative regulation filed in a government office, without broader public dissemination, provides no meaningful notice to a layperson. This lack of notice is compounded by the fact that the legislature later amended the statute to include phentermine but delayed the amendment's effective date, which would mislead anyone consulting the published statutes. Holding that filing a regulation with the secretary of state constitutes sufficient notice for a crime punishable by years in prison is unreasonable, illogical, and unconscionable.
Analysis:
This case is a classic affirmation of the modern nondelegation doctrine, permitting legislatures to rely on the expertise of administrative agencies to implement complex statutes. The ruling reinforces that a legislature can delegate rulemaking authority, even to define criminal conduct, as long as it provides an 'intelligible principle' or clear standards to guide the agency. This decision is crucial for the operation of the modern administrative state, allowing laws to adapt to new scientific information without requiring constant legislative amendment. However, the dissent highlights the enduring tension between administrative efficiency and the constitutional due process requirement of providing fair notice to the public about what conduct is criminal.
