Opinion ID: 564944
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Defense Authorization Act

Text: 44 In support of his contention that Rule 23(d) is facially invalid under the Defense Authorization Act (DAA), Doe highlights this language from 10 U.S.C. Sec. 980: Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense may not be used for research involving a human being as an experimental subject unless [ ] the informed consent of the subject is obtained in advance. 19 We are satisfied that the DAA does not block the FDA action in question. Rule 23(d) authorizes the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to make certain determinations upon the request of the Assistant Secretary of Defense. The DAA, however, limits the authority of the Department of Defense, not the authority of the Food and Drug Commissioner. Although it might be argued that the DAA restricts the authority of the Assistant Secretary of Defense to make the request anticipated by Rule 23(d), it cannot be argued that the DAA restricts the Secretary of Health and Human Services from promulgating Rule 23(d). Nor can it be argued that an FDC regulation is capable of conferring on the Secretary of Defense a power that, as Doe maintains, a statute (the Defense Authorization Act) expressly prohibits. Accordingly, we reject Doe's claim that Rule 23(d) is facially invalid under the DAA.