Washington Law Review


Pam Mrkvicka


This note first explores prior uses of the section 205(a) powers to support executive orders. Second, it discusses flaws with analogizing from those orders to the wage and price control order, and highlights the missing element of congressional approval in this case. Lastly, it examines constitutional questions posed by the decision. This note concludes that the court was mistaken in finding a close nexus between the FPASA and President Carter's order. In its application of the close nexus test, the court abrogated the statutory standards limiting executive discretion under the FPASA. The court's interpretation of the Act delegates more power to the executive than the Congress intended or had constitutional power to delegate.

First Page