Opinion ID: 555040
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The APA Definition of Agency

Text: The APA defines an agency as: 27 each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency, but does not include--(A) the Congress; (B) the courts of the United States; (C) the governments of the territories or possessions of the United States; (D) the government of the District of Columbia;.... 28 5 U.S.C. Sec. 701(b)(1) (definition for judicial review provisions); see also id. Sec. 551(1) (definition for subchapter on administrative procedure). Because this definition expressly excludes Congress and the courts but not the President, plaintiffs argue that the plain language should be read as implying that the President is an agency. See, e.g., De Rieux v. Five Smiths, Inc., 499 F.2d 1321, 1322 n. 13 (Temp.Emer.Ct.App.) (suggesting in dicta that the President is an agency under the APA), cert. denied sub nom., Five Smiths, Inc. v. Hollaway, 419 U.S. 896, 95 S.Ct. 176, 42 L.Ed.2d 141 (1974); Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen v. Connally, 337 F.Supp. 737, 761 (D.D.C.1971) (three-judge panel) (same). We find, however, that the textual silence, when read against the backdrop of the legislative history of the APA and the canons of construction applicable to statutes that implicate the separation of powers, points in the opposite direction--i.e., that Congress did not intend to subject the President to the APA. 29 The legislative history of the APA indicates that Congress wanted to avoid a formalistic definition of agency that might exclude any authority within the executive branch that should appropriately be subject to the requirements of the APA. For this reason, Congress thought it necessary to define agency as 'authority' rather than by name or form, because of the present system of including one agency within another or of authorizing internal boards or 'divisions' to have final authority. Senate Judiciary Committee Print, reprinted in Legislative History of the Administrative Procedure Act, S.Doc. No. 248, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 13 (1946) [hereinafter S.Doc. No. 248]; see also H.Rep. No. 1980, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. (1946), reprinted in S.Doc. No. 248 at 253. But we find no expression whatsoever in the legislative history that Congress used the broader term in order to subject the President to the requirements of the APA. 30 A conclusion that the President is not an agency under the APA is also supported by the longstanding practice of the executive branch. Even though the APA rulemaking provisions contain substantially the same agency definition as the judicial review provisions, the President has never been thought to have to comply with APA rulemaking procedures when issuing executive orders. Given the lack of any express legislative intent to the contrary, we are reluctant to hold that this longstanding presidential practice is contrary to the APA. Cf. Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking & Lumber Co., 331 U.S. 111, 116, 67 S.Ct. 1129, 1132, 91 L.Ed. 1375 (1947) (even though statute does not expressly grant the President the authority to create a new agency, the fact that the President has consistently construed the statute as conferring such authority is entitled to great weight). 31 When Congress decides purposefully to enact legislation restricting or regulating presidential action, it must make its intent clear. The Supreme Court has recognized that [i]n traditionally sensitive areas, such as legislation affecting the federal balance, the requirement of clear statement assures that the legislature has in fact faced, and intended to bring into issue, the critical matters involved in decision. United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 349, 92 S.Ct. 515, 523, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971). Although the clear statement rule was originally articulated to guide interpretation of statutes that significantly alter the federal-state balance, there are similar compelling reasons to apply the rule to statutes that significantly alter the balance between Congress and the President. 32 Legislation regulating presidential action, no less than legislation altering the federal-state balance, raises serious practical, political, and constitutional questions that warrant careful congressional and presidential consideration. See id. at 350, 92 S.Ct. at 523. The answer to whether the APA should apply to the President depends on an analysis of several factors, including the President's constitutional powers, the multifarious responsibilities of his office, and his direct political accountability as the only elected official with a national constituency. Bruff, Judicial Review and the President's Statutory Powers, 68 Va.L.Rev. 1, 22 (1982). In the absence of any affirmative evidence that these issues were considered in the legislative process and that Congress passed the APA with the understanding that it would regulate presidential as well as other executive branch action, we refuse to hold that the President is an agency within the meaning of the APA.