Supreme Court and the politics of the separation of powers doctrine

The separation of powers doctrine is a pillar of American government, characterized by the separation and balancing of legislative, executive and judicial powers. Throughout its history, the Supreme Court has alternated between formalism and functionalism in its separation of powers jurisprudence. The Court relied upon a greater use of the formalistic separation of powers over a functional, balancing of governmental powers as a way to check congressional delegations of authority to administrative agencies. While conservative formalists invalidated numerous presidential initiatives and congressional delegations to agencies, liberal justices used the functional model after 1937 to uphold delegations of power until the Court revived the formal-functional debate. Analysis of Court decisions regarding congressional versus presidential power over agencies is essential for understanding the revival of the debate over agency viability within tripartite government in three landmark cases: INS v. Chadha, (1983) Bowsher v. Synar (1986) and Morrison v. Olson (1988).