Court Opinion

ID: 9470971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:22:08.54097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:13.046488
License: Public Domain

*1441PREGERSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur completely in Judge Reinhardt’s opinion. I write separately only to emphasize my concern over the Secretary’s avowed policy of nonacquiescence with Ninth Circuit law as enunciated in Patti v. Schweiker, 669 F.2d 582 (9th Cir.1982), and Finnegan v. Matthews, 641 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir.1981). The Secretary’s ill-advised policy of refusing to obey the decisional law of this circuit is akin to the repudiated preCivil War doctrine of nullification whereby rebellious states refuséd to recognize certain federal laws within their boundaries. The Secretary’s nonacquiescence not only scoffs at the law of this circuit, but flouts some very important principles basic to our American system of government — the rule of law, the doctrine of separation of powers imbedded in the constitution, and the tenet of judicial supremacy laid down in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137,2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). The government expects its citizens to abide by the law — no less is expected of those charged with the duty to faithfully administer the law.