Opinion ID: 441674
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: analysis

Text: 27 The EEOC argues that the court should not apply Chadha for two reasons: 28 1. The unconstitutional one-House veto provision can be severed to preserve the substantive portions of the Reorganization Act and thereby to validate the Reorganization Plans implemented pursuant to the Act. In Chadha, supra, the Supreme Court found that the one-House veto provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act was severable from the remaining provisions based upon the presence of a severability clause and the legislative history of the Act. The Reorganization Act contains no severability clause but the EEOC argues that severability can be drawn from the legislative history. 29 2. Congressional action subsequent to the Reorganization Act has impliedly ratified the transfer of ADEA enforcement authority to the EEOC. The Commission contends that the subsequent appropriations to the EEOC, which cite enforcement of the Equal Pay Act and the ADEA as part of the basis for the appropriation, and the reference to the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978 in the Civil Service Reform Act support a finding of ratification. 30 An amicus asserts that the transfer of enforcement authority to the EEOC was not consistent with Congressional intent demonstrated in the legislative history surrounding the provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act which vested enforcement authority in the Department of Labor. That amicus argues that Congress carefully considered the placement of enforcement authority and specifically chose the Department of Labor instead of the newer and more inexperienced EEOC and that the transfer directly contravenes the original action of Congress. 31 All of these arguments assume that the presence of the one-House veto in the Reorganization Act is alone sufficient to invalidate the Act, without regard to the fact that the veto was not exercised in this case. The Court is not persuaded that Chadha dictates this conclusion or necessitates framing the issues in this way. 32 The basis for the decision in Chadha is the doctrine of separation of powers which is integral to the constitutional scheme. Under Art. I, Sec. 1, [a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Article II, Section 1 provides The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. And Article III, Section 1 vests in the Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish the judicial power of the United States. 33 The President may not circumvent the constitution by attempting to legislate by Executive Order. Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952). Congress may not usurp the appointment power vested in the President pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 120-43, 96 S.Ct. 612, 682-94, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976). Congress may not exercise judicial power by legislating deprivations for specific individuals or groups of individuals in violation of the Bill of Attainder Clause. United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 14 L.Ed.2d 484 (1965); United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 66 S.Ct. 1073, 90 L.Ed. 1252 (1946). The constitution dictates each of these results through the specific delegations of power in Articles I, II, and III. 34 The Supreme Court in Chadha found that the exercise of one-House veto violated the constitution because in substance it was an attempt to legislate by one-House of Congress. In using the veto, the House of Representatives purported to exercise more power than it had been given by the constitution. For a particular bill to become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress and presented to the President and neither requirement was met. The exercise of the veto in Chadha also invaded the authority of the Executive Branch in that it sought to require the Attorney General to deport an alien after he had decided, in the exercise of properly delegated authority, that the alien should be permitted to stay. 35 The judiciary, like the other two branches of government, is confined to the power granted by the constitution and can act only within the context of a case or controversy brought in conformity with the jurisdictional grant of Article III, Sec. 2. The policy of judicial restraint is consistent with the separation of powers inherent in the constitutional scheme and the idea that courts should be reluctant to act absent a specific case brought within the constitutional grant of jurisdiction was articulated long ago in Hayburn's Case, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 408, 1 L.Ed. 436 (1792) and in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). The duty to avoid decisions of constitutional questions and the various doctrines related to advisory opinions, political questions, ripeness, etc., are all based upon the general policy of judicial restraint. Consequently, this court must seek to avoid the constitutional determination and must attempt to preserve the legislation in question, if possible. See, e.g., Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 366-67, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 1165-66, 39 L.Ed.2d 389 (1974); United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs, 402 U.S. 363, 369, 91 S.Ct. 1400, 1404, 28 L.Ed.2d 822 rehearing denied, 403 U.S. 924, 91 S.Ct. 2221, 29 L.Ed.2d 702 (1971); Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 62, 52 S.Ct. 285, 296, 76 L.Ed. 598 (1932); Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 96, (10 Otto) 82, 96, 25 L.Ed. 550 (1879). 36 It is with these principles in mind that the court approaches the question of the constitutionality of the Reorganization Act and the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978. It is clear that Chadha dictates and expressly holds that the exercise of the one-House veto is unconstitutional. In exercising the veto Congress purported to act in a legislative capacity. This action was a violation of Article I. In the present case, Congress did not exercise the veto and did not act to legislate contrary to its constitutional grant of power. 37 The Reorganization Act expressly delegated the power to the President to reorganize and restructure the executive branch consistent with the policies and the limitations of the Act. 5 U.S.C. Secs. 901-912. The President prepared the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978 in conformity with the power delegated. The plan did not alter the substance of any right conferred under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act but merely transferred the authority to enforce substantive rights to the EEOC. 6 It is clear from the legislative history that Congress was satisfied that the President had complied with the standards set forth in the Act. As discussed earlier, the House voted against the resolution of disapproval and the Senate unanimously consented to table the resolution after receiving the recommendation from its Committee on Government Operations that the resolution of disapproval be rejected. Both the House and Senate committees charged with reviewing the reorganization plan conducted hearings on the advisability of the transfer of enforcement authority prior to presenting recommendations on the resolutions. 7 38 In enacting the Reorganization Act, Congress tried, through the legislative veto, to put a string on the power delegated to the President in much the same way as it tried to put a string on the power delegated to the Attorney General in Chadha. As in Chadha, the veto provision could not be validly exercised. However, in the present case, the one-House veto was never exercised and the legislative history surrounding the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978 demonstrates that the President acted in accordance with the wishes of Congress. The Reorganization Act itself was enacted in conformance with Article I and Congress did not veto the plan and then did not act in an unconstitutional manner in violation of Article I as occurred in Chadha. The legislative and executive branches of government never came into conflict as they did in Chadha to create a constitutional confrontation that would require judicial intervention. When there is no confrontation, the court should not create one and should not decide questions in the hypothetical. 39 Therefore, the court concludes that it is not necessary to examine the legislative history to determine whether the veto provision is severable. Nor is it necessary to determine if subsequent actions of Congress constitute a ratification of the President's reorganization plan. These issues are simply not relevant in this case. When the President Acts in accordance with the wishes of Congress and Congress does not act in an unconstitutional manner by attempting to legislate by means of the one-House veto, there is no need to go further and examine the severability question as was necessary in Chadha. If Congress had attempted to legislate in this unconstitutional manner, then the issue would be relevant. But when Congress does not act unconstitutionally, the severability of a provision permitting unconstitutional action should not be part of the proper analysis of the problem. 40 The central question for the consideration of severability is whether Congress would have passed the statute absent the offending provision. The difficulty arises when an invalid provision is an integral part of the scheme contemplated by the statute. It is hard to see the logic of this inquiry under the circumstances of the present case. Congress has long since reviewed the President's reorganization plan and has long since chosen not to exercise the one-House veto. Congress and the President were apparently in accord with respect to the transfer of authority to the EEOC. To inquire at this point in time whether Congress would have passed the Reorganizational Act without the one-House veto provision and, thereby, whether the substantive provisions of the Act are effective absent the provision, makes no sense when Congress has already declined to use the veto provision and thus has already approved the plan. Such an inquiry would involve the court in needless speculation and would require it to manufacture a conflict between Congress and the President when no conflict in fact exists. 41 Not only is a consideration of the severability of the veto provision not relevant for all the reasons stated, but also severance in the absence of a clearly expressed legislative intent is a murky endeavor and the resting of a constitutional decision involving the transfer of executive power on such an exercise filled with the subjective feelings so necessary to this type of analysis should be avoided. Instead, a court faced with the claim made in this case should endeavor to provide analysis and guidance that does not involve the subjective opinions of individuals and that will help solve the constitutional claims in the hundreds of other cases arising as a result of more than half a century of inclusion of a legislative veto provision in statutes. The correct analysis is that Congress did not act unconstitutionally when it passed the Reorganization Act of 1977. Congress did not act unconstitutionally by attempting to exercise a one-House veto. No conflict existed between Congress and the executive. The existence of an unused portion of the statute which, if used, would not be valid does not make invalid the exercise of power directed by the statute. 42 The conclusion, that the existence of a one-House veto provision in a statute does not render the statute invalid but only renders the act of Congress, if it attempts to exercise its one-House veto invalid, does not end the court's inquiry in this case. 43 Congress may not delegate legislative authority without establishing a set of standards to guide, direct and circumscribe the exercise of that authority. Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742, 68 S.Ct. 1294, 92 L.Ed. 1694 (1948); Schechter Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 55 S.Ct. 837, 79 L.Ed. 1570 (1935); Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388, 55 S.Ct. 241, 79 L.Ed. 446 (1935). 44 It is thought by some that the legislative veto has been used by Congress to avoid the difficult problem of designing standards sufficiently detailed to provide guidance, See Chadha, supra, 103 S.Ct. at 2792-96 (J. White dissenting). As Professor Tribe said prior to Chadha, the inclusion of a legislative veto should not cure an overbroad delegation of authority. L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 162 (1978). On the other hand, he likewise observed that a properly limited delegation is not rendered overbroad by the inclusion of a legislative veto. Id. 45 The real issue facing this court in this case, and in all cases involving statutes in which the legislative veto has not been exercised, is whether the delegation of authority is accompanied by sufficient standards to permit the executive to constitutionally exercise the power given. 46 The legislative history of the Reorganization Act demonstrates than Congress was mindful of the possible constitutional problems with the one-house veto and included standards in the statute to increase Congressional control over the reorganization process and to increase the likelihood that the statute would be found constitutional. 8 47 The standards provided are of varying kinds and, taken as a whole, guide, direct and circumscribe the President in reorganizing the executive branch. 48 First, Congress directed that the reorganization plans should be designed to further one or more of the following purposes: 49 Promote better execution of the laws; 50 Promote more effective management of the executive branch and its agencies; 51 Promote the effective administration of the public business; 52 Reduce expenditures; 53 Promote economy; 54 Increase efficiency; 55 Coordinate and consolidate agencies and functions according to major purposes; 56 Reduce the number of agencies by consolidating those with similar functions and abolish such agencies or functions thereof as may not be necessary to efficient government; 57 Eliminate overlapping and duplicating effort. 58 5 U.S.C. Sec. 901. These are explicit guides and directives to the President which provide a careful framework for the authority granted. Furthermore, these are not the only standards provided in the statute. 59 The Act is specific in excluding certain activity of the executive department from its operation. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 902 (excluding the General Accounting Office and the Comptroller General). The President is also prohibited from creating a new executive department, abolishing or transferring an executive department of independent regulatory agency, or all the functions thereof, or consolidating two or more executive departments or two or more independent regulatory agencies, or all of the functions thereof. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 905(a)(1). He is proscribed from extending the life of an agency and from authorizing an agency to exercise a function which is not expressly authorized by law at the time of the plan. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 905(a)(2)-(4). 60 The statute provides both general and specific directives for the exercise of the reorganization power as well as a number of circumscribing limitations upon the exercise of that power. The transfer of ADEA enforcement functions from the Department of Labor to EEOC is not unconstitutional under these circumstances. We agree with the analysis of the court in E.E.O.C. v. Hernando Bank, Inc., 724 F.2d 1188 (5th Cir.1984) in this regard: 61 The substantive limitations imposed retain for Congress control over the substantive operations of the federal government. The Act does nothing more than delegate to the President the authority to reorganize the complex bureaucratic machinery of the executive branch so as to implement most effectively Congress' substantive policies. 62 724 F.2d at 1192. 63 It is clear that Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested. Schechter Corp. v. United States, supra, 295 U.S. at 529, 55 S.Ct. at 843 (quoted with approval in National Cable Television Ass'n. v. United States, 415 U.S. 336, 342, 94 S.Ct. 1146, 1150, 39 L.Ed.2d 370 (1974)). 9 This does not mean, however, that Congress may never delegate authority. 64 If Congress shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle ... such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power. Hampton Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409 [48 S.Ct. 348, 352, 72 L.Ed. 624]. Standards prescribed by Congress are to be read in light of the conditions to which they are to be applied. They derive much meaningful content from the purpose of the Act, its factual background and the statutory context in which they appear. American Power & Light Co. v. S.E.C., 329 U.S. 90, 104 [67 S.Ct. 133, 142, 91 L.Ed. 103]. 65 Lichter v. United States, supra, 334 U.S. at 785, 68 S.Ct. at 1316. 66 In Lichter the Supreme Court upheld a delegation of authority to renegotiate all contracts and subcontracts made by the War Department, the Navy Department or the Maritime Department. The Secretary of each department was instructed to require the contractor or subcontractor to renegotiate a contract whenever the Secretary determined that excessive profits had been realized or were likely to be realized. The Renegotiation Act did not define the term excessive profits. The Court, however, found that the term itself was sufficiently clear in light of the factual background of the Act. Furthermore, the power authorized under the Act was for a limited period of time. 67 The standards provided in the Reorganization Act of 1977 are considerably more detailed than those in the Renegotiation Act found valid in Lichter. The authority to reorganize the executive branch was also conferred for a limited period of time. 10 68 Finally, the extent and the type of authority delegated in the Reorganization Act is an important consideration. The cases discussing the sufficiency of the standards needed to sustain a delegation of power use the phrase in light of the conditions to which they are to be applied. Lichter, supra, 334 U.S. at 785, 68 S.Ct. at 1316. In 1978 Congress recognized that the government had grown over a number of decades by adding one agency on top of another, often with conflicting or duplicative authority. H.R.Rep. No. 95-105, supra at 4, 1977 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News at 43-44. Congress also recognized that reorganization could be accomplished more speedily by the President than by the enactment of specific legislation. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 901(b). The President was given authority to streamline the executive branch as a manager would streamline a department of a company. He was not given authority to eliminate functions, to alter substantive rights, or to change the way in which statutes could be enforced. The standards provided in the Act are clearly sufficient, in light of the conditions to which they were to be applied and in light of the nature of the authority delegated. 11 We do not construe the action by the Congress in this case to be an evasion of the Constitution by enactment of executive proposals by mere silence, See Chadha, 462 U.S. at ---- n. 22, 103 S.Ct. at 2787 n. 22, nor did the Congressional action in reorganization alter the substantive rights of parties subject to ADEA as was the case in Chadha where the substantive rights of the alien and I.N.S. were affected by one-House action, id. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 2784. 69 While the court has discussed the facts relative to the ratification argument set forth by the EEOC, we do not mean to imply that ratification is a proper ground for upholding the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978. The facts do not support ratification, and we do not adopt EEOC's argument in this respect. However, the facts are relevant to the broader issue of whether the plan was, in fact, consistent with the standards articulated in the Reorganization Act, and to the lack of constitutional confrontation between the executive and legislative branches, and to the complete legislative history of this particular transfer of authority and have therefore been included. 70 For the reasons given above, the order of the district court denying the motion for a preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED.