Court Opinion

ID: 9487108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:08:16.40199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:05.907058
License: Public Domain

SENTELLE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
As the majority in today’s decision holds, Hayburn’s Case, 2 U.S. (2 Dali.) 408, 1 L.Ed. 436 (1792), establishes the principle of law that “a federal court is not presented with a justiciable case or controversy when its decision would go into effect only upon the approval of a reviewing official in the executive branch.” Maj. op. at 1513. Of course I agree with the majority’s formulation, but I would state the rule a bit more broadly: once a judgment has been rendered by an Article III court, review of that decision may be had only by resort to higher authority within the Article III system, i.e., by appeal to a higher federal court. Judgments of Article III courts may not be abrogated by either Congress or the Executive; and an Article III court lacks jurisdiction to render judgments in any case that would be subject to inter-branch review.
The regulatory scheme at issue in this case authorizes the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to second guess the judgments of this Court in violation of this fundamental constitutional principle. I would dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
^ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡
As the majority correctly points out, it is possible for us to render a judgment on the present petition that will not be subject to review by OPM: if we hold that the union’s proposal conflicts with § 430.504(d), the parties will have no obligation to bargain. However, the opposite result gives me pause: if we hold that the proposal does not conflict with the regulation, the parties will have to bargain in good faith,1 but OPM can then render an opposed conclusion setting our judgment at naught. I do not accept the proposition that where one possible result of a case is not reviewable by an authority outside of the Article III courts, this is sufficient to survive a Haybum’s Case analysis of the entire question. The factual circumstances of Haybum’s itself instruct to the contrary.
The statute in Haybum’s Case directed that all veterans of the Revolutionary War “disabled in the actual service of the United States ... shall be entitled to be placed on the pension list of the United States.” Act of Mar. 23, 1792, ch. 11, 1 Stat. 243, 244 (1792) (repealed in part and amended by Act of Feb. 28, 1793, ch. 17, 1 Stat. 324 (1793)). Persons seeking benefits under the statute were directed to appear in federal circuit court, which would first determine whether the petitioner was disabled “in the actual service of the United States,” and would then determine the amount of any pension the petitioner should receive as compensation for his disability. In any case in which the court ruled that a veteran was entitled to a pension, the Act required the court to transmit its opinion to the Secretary of War, who would place the petitioner’s name on the pension list. The Act provided, however, that if the Secretary had “cause to suspect imposition or mistake,” he was entitled “to withhold the name of such applicant from the pension list, and make report of the same to Congress, at their next session.” Id.
Under this statutory scheme, one possible result in the court proceeding was not subject to review by the. Executive. The Act did not provide pension-seekers with any right of direct appeal to the Secretary of War. Thus, if the circuit court determined that the petitioner was ineligible for a pension, that was “the end of the matter.” Maj. op. at 1513.
But if the circuit court decided that the petitioner was entitled to a pension, the court was to send its opinion to the Secretary of War, who would place the petitioner’s name *1518on the pension list, provided that he “had no cause to suspect imposition or mistake.” As in the present case, one possible result under the statutory scheme reviewed in Haybum’s Case was not subject to review by the Executive. Nonetheless, the fact that the other possible disposition was subject to review outside the Article III system was sufficient to cause the Justices to opine (if not precisely to hold) for the first time in our nation’s history that an Act of Congress ran afoul of the Constitution.
When Hayburn’s Case arose, the Justices of the Supreme Court “rode circuit” and, sitting with district court judges, comprised the federal circuit courts. The five sitting Justices of the Supreme Court thus addressed the constitutionality of the Pension Act while sitting on three separate circuit court panels. Each panel unanimously refused to adjudicate the veterans’ pension requests on the ground that the Act’s provision for Executive review of the courts’ judgments deprived them of jurisdiction.
The Justices sitting on the circuit court for the District of New York explained that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to decide the initial question of the veterans’ pension eligibility because
the duties assigned to the Circuit Courts, by this act, are not [properly judicial] ... inasmuch as [the act] subjects the decisions of these courts ... first to the consideration and suspension of the Secretary at War, and then to the revision of the Legislature; whereas by the Constitution, neither the Secretary at War, nor any other Executive officer, nor even the Legislature, are authorized to sit as a Court of Errors on the judicial acts or opinions of this Court.
Hayburn’s Case, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) at 410 n. 1 (Opinion of Chief Justice Jay, Justice Cush-ing and District Judge Duane).
The Justices sitting in Pennsylvania offered nearly identical reasons for refusing to hear the veterans’ petitions:
We have been unanimously of the opinion, that under this act, the Circuit Court held for the Pennsylvania District could not proceed_ Because, if upon that business, the court had proceeded, its judgments, for its opinions are its judgments, might, under the same act, have been revised and controlled by the Legislature, and by an officer in the Executive department. Such revision and control we deemed radically inconsistent with the independence of that judicial power which is vested in the courts; and, consequently, with that important principle which is so strictly observed by the Constitution of the United States.
Id. (Opinion of Justices Wilson and Blair and District Judge Peters).
Finally, the circuit court for the District of North Carolina declined jurisdiction because
inasmuch as the decision of the Court is not made final, but may be at least suspended in its operation by the Secretary at War, if he shall have cause to suspect imposition or mistake; this subjects the decision of the court to a mode of revision which we consider to be unwarranted by the Constitution; for, though Congress may certainly establish ... courts of appellate jurisdiction, yet such courts must consist of Judges appointed in the manner the Constitution requires, and holding their offices by no other tenure than that of their good behavior, by which tenure the office of Secretary at War is not held.
Id. at 11 • (Opinion of Justice Iredell and District Judge Sitgreaves).
Judgments of Article III courts may not be reviewed by either Congress or the Executive. That is the rule of Haybum’s Case, restated numerous times throughout our constitutional history. See, e.g., Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 113, 68 S.Ct. 431, 437, 92 L.Ed. 568 (1948) (“[I]f the President may completely disregard the judgment of the court, it would be only because it is one the courts were not authorized to render.”); United States v. Ferreira, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 40, 14 L.Ed. 40 (1851) (district judge does not exercise “judicial power” under statutory scheme making his decisions reviewable by Secretary of the Treasury). Because I see no principled difference between an administrative agency which can second guess our decisions and an executive official *1519who can do the same thing, I would conclude that we lack jurisdiction to hear the present cause.
The question presented in this petition for review is whether the union’s performance award proposal conflicts with 5 C.F.R. § 430.504(d), a government-wide regulation promulgated by OPM. The majority passes on that question and decides that the proposal and the regulation do not conflict. But it is undisputed that, at a later stage in the life of this same performance award proposal, OPM may also be called upon to decide whether the union’s proposal conflicts with § 430.504(d). OPM’s ability to disapprove a performance award plan based on its incompatibility with § 430.504(d) thus gives the agency a second bite at a question conclusively determined by this Court. In such a situation, our judgment that the performance award plan does not conflict with the regulation would have no more binding effect than if our judgment were directly reviewable by the President, see Waterman, 333 U.S. at 103, 68 S.Ct. at 431, the Secretary of the Treasury, see Ferreira, 54 U.S. (13 How.) at 40, or the Secretary of War, see Hayburn’s Case, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) at 408. The fact that OPM would not review this question of law until after the parties had negotiated the awards proposal, whereas we are asked to render a judgment before such negotiation, does not, in my mind, alleviate this problem.
The following hypothetical based on the facts of Haybum’s Case illustrates this point: Imagine a statute that, like the statute in Hayburn’s Case, directs an Article III court to determine whether a veteran is disabled and whether he had become disabled “in the actual service of the United States.” Unlike the statute in Hayburn’s, however, this statute directs that after the court determines a petitioner’s pension eligibility, the petitioner must negotiate the amount of his pension with the Secretary of the Treasury. Once the parties have reached an agreement, they are required to submit their pension proposal to the Secretary of War for final approval. The statute authorizes the Secretary to disapprove any pension request if he finds: 1) that the negotiated amount was unreasonable, or 2) that the petitioner was not actually “disabled in the actual service of the United States.”. I would submit that, under this statute, the court lacks jurisdiction to decide the initial question of pension eligibility, just as it did in Haybum’s. In both cases, the court’s determination that a particular veteran meets the statutory requirements for a pension is subject to executive review.
The same jurisdictional defect plagues the present case. OPM regulations allow the agency at a later stage in this proceeding to render a decision that may overturn the judgment of this Court. As I read Hay-bum’s Case, we lack jurisdiction to decide such a case. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.

. Provided that, on remand, the FLRA does not come up with some other ground for concluding that the proposal is nonnegotiable.