Advocates for Effective Regulation v. City of Eugene

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that city charter provision incorporating the definition of “hazardous substances” from future federal regulations was an improper delegation of legislative authority
• holding that that rule applies to munici- pal charters
• applying statutory construction methodology to determine “the extent of the intended preemptive effect of state law”
• in a facial challenge, “the question is whether the challenged enactment is valid as written, as opposed to validly applied to a given set of facts”
• in a facial challenge “the question is whether the challenged enactment is valid as written, as opposed to validly applied to a given set of facts”
• “A state statute, for example, cannot incorporate future federal regulations not yet promulgated at the time of enactment; the effect of doing so is to delegate the power to amend the statute to the federal regulatory authority.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).