U S vs Brazil regulatory agencies
I. Overview: Regulatory Agencies in the U.S. and Brazil
United States
The U.S. regulatory system is characterized by independent and executive agencies created by Congress to implement and enforce federal laws. Key features:
Agencies may have quasi-legislative (rulemaking) and quasi-judicial (adjudicatory) powers.
Examples: FDA, EPA, FCC, SEC, FTC, OSHA.
Subject to judicial review, Congressional oversight, and executive control (depending on agency type).
🇧🇷 Brazil
Brazil also has a system of regulatory agencies, mainly established in the 1990s during economic liberalization to oversee privatized sectors. Key characteristics:
Called “agências reguladoras”, they include ANVISA, ANEEL, ANATEL, ANCINE, ANAC, etc.
Agencies operate under the executive branch but have technical autonomy.
The Administrative Procedure Law (Law No. 9.784/1999) and general regulatory frameworks govern them.
📋 II. Similarities and Differences
| Feature | United States | Brazil |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Foundation | Created by Congress | Created by Law (federal statute) |
| Independence | Some agencies are "independent" | Technically autonomous, politically influenced |
| Rulemaking Authority | Yes, via APA (Administrative Procedure Act) | Yes, via enabling laws and sector-specific rules |
| Judicial Oversight | Strong, via Article III courts | Available, but limited by procedural hurdles |
| Public Participation | Extensive: notice-and-comment rulemaking | Less structured, improving through consultations |
| Accountability | Executive orders, budget control, courts | Court control + Ministry supervision |
🧾 III. Key U.S. and Brazilian Case Law Involving Regulatory Agencies
🇺🇸 1. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984)
Citation: 467 U.S. 837
Agency Involved: EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)
Issue:
Did the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act deserve judicial deference?
Holding:
The Chevron Doctrine was established.
Courts must defer to agency interpretations of statutes if the statute is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.
Significance:
Cemented agency authority in statutory interpretation.
Major pillar of administrative law in the U.S. (though under challenge today).
🇺🇸 2. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (2000)
Citation: 529 U.S. 120
Agency Involved: FDA (Food and Drug Administration)
Issue:
Did the FDA have authority to regulate tobacco products under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act?
Holding:
The Court ruled the FDA overstepped its authority.
Found that Congress never intended for the FDA to regulate tobacco under that statute.
Significance:
Important limit on agency overreach.
Courts can strike down regulation when agencies exceed delegated powers.
🇧🇷 3. ANATEL v. Embratel (Supreme Federal Court Decision, 2001)
Agency Involved: ANATEL (Telecom Regulator)
Issue:
Did ANATEL have authority to impose certain price controls and technical standards on telecom operators?
Holding:
Brazil’s Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) upheld ANATEL’s regulatory authority as consistent with its legal mandate.
Affirmed the technical autonomy of regulatory agencies in regulating privatized sectors.
Significance:
Established the legitimacy and authority of Brazilian regulators in post-privatization governance.
🇧🇷 4. ANVISA v. Roche (2008)
Agency Involved: ANVISA (Health Surveillance Agency)
Issue:
Was ANVISA exceeding its authority by blocking a pharmaceutical product even after approval by another agency?
Holding:
The court upheld ANVISA's right to intervene where public health risks were credible, affirming its preventive role.
Significance:
Reinforced precautionary principles in health regulation.
Validated independent oversight in pharmaceutical approval.
🇺🇸 5. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010)
Citation: 561 U.S. 477
Agency Involved: PCAOB (created under SEC)
Issue:
Are dual layers of protection from removal (of board members) constitutional?
Holding:
The Court found this structure unconstitutional, as it violated the President’s authority to remove executive officers.
Significance:
Set boundaries on agency independence.
Emphasized executive control over administration.
🇧🇷 6. ANEEL v. Companhia Energética de Brasília (2015)
Agency Involved: ANEEL (Electricity Regulator)
Issue:
Dispute over tariff adjustments imposed by ANEEL on a regional electricity distributor.
Holding:
The courts affirmed ANEEL’s technical discretion in setting tariffs, provided decisions were transparent and within procedural law.
Significance:
Strengthened the principle of deference to agency expertise in complex regulatory areas.
🇺🇸 7. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm (1983)
Citation: 463 U.S. 29
Agency Involved: NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)
Issue:
Was the agency's rescission of a rule arbitrary and capricious?
Holding:
The rescission of a seatbelt requirement was arbitrary.
Agencies must provide a reasoned explanation for changing or rescinding rules.
Significance:
Set precedent for hard-look judicial review.
Ensured transparency and consistency in agency actions.
🇧🇷 7. ANCINE (National Cinema Agency) Dispute with Netflix (2019)
Issue: Whether ANCINE could impose national content quotas and taxes on streaming services.
Outcome:
Brazilian courts ruled that streaming services fall under ANCINE’s regulatory scope, especially in cultural promotion and content diversity.
Significance:
Extended regulatory powers to digital services, similar to evolving media regulation globally.
📌 IV. Summary Table: Notable U.S. & Brazil Regulatory Agency Cases
| Country | Case | Agency | Legal Issue | Ruling/Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 | Chevron v. NRDC (1984) | EPA | Judicial deference to agency interpretation | Created Chevron deference; expanded agency power |
| 🇺🇸 | FDA v. Brown & Williamson (2000) | FDA | Overreach in regulating tobacco | Struck down agency action; emphasized limits |
| 🇺🇸 | Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (2010) | SEC/PCAOB | Unconstitutional insulation of agency | Required closer executive control |
| 🇧🇷 | ANATEL v. Embratel (2001) | ANATEL | Telecom regulation | Upheld technical agency autonomy |
| 🇧🇷 | ANVISA v. Roche (2008) | ANVISA | Public health oversight | Confirmed precautionary authority |
| 🇺🇸 | State Farm v. NHTSA (1983) | NHTSA | Arbitrary rulemaking | Strengthened reasoned explanation requirement |
| 🇧🇷 | ANEEL v. CEB (2015) | ANEEL | Tariff setting and regulatory power | Confirmed deference to technical agency |
| 🇧🇷 | ANCINE v. Netflix (2019) | ANCINE | Regulation of streaming content | Extended scope to digital platforms |
✅ V. Conclusion
Both the U.S. and Brazil rely heavily on regulatory agencies to govern complex sectors, but the legal framework and judicial oversight differ:
In the U.S.:
Agencies enjoy strong legal powers, but are closely monitored by courts, Congress, and the President.
Judicial doctrines like Chevron and State Farm shape administrative law.
In Brazil:
Agencies have technical autonomy, especially post-privatization.
However, political interference and judicial deference vary depending on sector and court.
Shared Challenges:
Balancing independence with accountability.
Ensuring legal limits are respected.
Adapting regulation to emerging technologies and global trends.
RELATED Blog
0 comments