Increasingly, both federal and state governments are delegating judicial and law-making authority to private organizations, transforming these organizations into quasi-governmental bodies. The Supreme Court has been suspicious of delegating governmental authority to private parties for a long time. The Court has upheld delegations of rulemaking authority to private parties when minimal oversight by federal agencies was mandated by Congress.

In the states, delegations to private parties are becoming increasingly com-mon. Delegations to insurance companies to regulate worker’s compensation and licensing programs are examples. The reasons to privatize are many. Governments often privatize because they lack the expertise to perform the necessary function. Some advocate privatization because it reduces the size of government. Finally, privatization makes sense when a transient or emergent need presents itself and a government lacks the resources to respond adequately.

Some commentators have challenged the notion that privatization is more efficient. Others contend that the privatization of public functions threatens the public good. They point out that efficiency was not foremost on the minds of the framers of our nation when they designed our governmental architecture. On the contrary, they were aware that the system they created was inefficient.

However, the framers did not foresee the myriad services that governments would provide. To the framers, governmental functions were policing, corrections, roads, armed services, foreign affairs, and, to a limited extent, education. Today, largely as a result of the expansion of government that occurred in the 1930s, federal and local governments directly provide for citizens’ health care, Social Security and pensions, disability, and recreation needs. Privatization gives rise to many legal issues. Compliance with civil service, regulatory, environmental, and constitutional laws, for example, must be considered.