Warren v. MARION COUNTY
353 P.2d 257, 1960 Ore. LEXIS 518, 222 Or. 307 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legislative delegation of power to an administrative body is constitutionally valid, even without detailed statutory standards, provided the legislative scheme establishes adequate procedural safeguards, such as an appeals process, to protect affected parties from arbitrary action.
Facts:
- Marion County, Oregon, enacted a building code ordinance pursuant to a state enabling act.
- The ordinance applied only to the unincorporated areas of the county located west of the Willamette meridian.
- The ordinance explicitly excluded farm dwellings and other agricultural buildings from its requirements.
- Warren, a building contractor, was told by Marion County that he was required to comply with the new building code ordinance.
- Warren believed that complying with the ordinance would cause him irreparable financial loss.
Procedural Posture:
- Warren, a building contractor, filed a suit in a state trial court against Marion County.
- The suit sought a declaratory judgment that the county's building code ordinance was unconstitutional and void.
- The trial court, hearing the matter on briefs and arguments without a factual dispute, held that the ordinance was constitutional.
- The trial court ordered Warren to comply with the provisions of the building code ordinance.
- Warren (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
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 a state statute that authorizes a county to adopt a building code ordinance violate the non-delegation doctrine of the Oregon Constitution when the statute provides general standards and requires the creation of an appeals process, rather than enumerating specific, detailed criteria for the code?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Connell, J.
No, the state statute does not represent an unconstitutional delegation of power. The court held that the traditional requirement for express and detailed standards in a delegating statute is less important than the presence of adequate procedural safeguards. The court first corrected a clerical error in the statute, finding that the legislature intended to refer to the general standards for public health, safety, and welfare listed in ORS 215.055. It then reasoned that the critical factor is not the text of the standards, which are often vague abstractions, but whether the overall administrative procedure protects individuals from arbitrary power. The statute's requirement that the county establish an appeals procedure (ORS 215.108(2)) provides a sufficient safeguard, as it allows for review of an administrator's decisions. The court also rejected challenges based on the state constitution's title and single-subject rule, finding that a building code is 'properly connected' to 'county planning.' Finally, it upheld the ordinance's geographical classification, ruling that applying the code only to the more densely populated western part of the county was a reasonable distinction based on population.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in administrative law, moving the focus of the non-delegation doctrine from a formalistic requirement for legislative 'standards' to a more functional analysis of procedural 'safeguards.' The court effectively lowers the bar for how specific a legislature must be when delegating authority, as long as it builds in mechanisms for due process, such as administrative appeals. This approach grants legislatures greater flexibility and relies on judicial review and procedural rights, rather than statutory text, to check the power of administrative agencies. The case is a leading example of the modern trend prioritizing procedural fairness over strict adherence to the separation of powers in the context of administrative rulemaking.
