Ha ancora senso parlare di administrative State?

The paper examines the contemporary relevance of the category of the “administrative State”, questioning its continuing descriptive and critical utility within modern legal systems. Starting from the United States debate, the contribution reconstructs the opposition between, on the one hand, interpretations that denounce the expansion of administrative power as a regression from the constitutionalism of the separation of powers, and, on the other, those that justify its legitimacy in terms of procedural rationality, technical expertise, and transparency. Particular attention is devoted to recent Supreme Court case law and to the “major questions doctrine” as a tool for constraining expansive regulatory claims by administrative agencies. The analysis is then extended to the European context, where the period of the von der Leyen Commission is interpreted as a decisive phase in the strengthening of a supranational dimension of administrative and regulatory power. This development is evidenced by policies related to the green and digital transition, as well as by the management of recent crises, but also by increasing criticism concerning over-regulation, accountability deficits, and the extensive use of delegated acts and emergency procedures. In conclusion, the impact of artificial intelligence is understood as a further qualitative leap, insofar as algorithmic regulation tends to compress procedural processes and political mediation, thereby heightening the risk of a self-referential administration grounded in the efficiency of computation. It follows that the “administrative State” can no longer be regarded as an anomaly, but rather as an ordinary form of governance in complex societies, raising the question whether the traditional categories of constitutionalism remain adequate to contain it and to ensure its democratic legitimacy.