Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1986

Bowsher v. Synar

478 U.S. 714 | 106 S. Ct. 3181 | 92 L. Ed. 2d 583 | 1986 U.S. LEXIS 141 | 54 U.S.L.W. 5064

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that Congress cannot retain removal power over an officer and then give that officer binding authority to execute federal law; doing so lets Congress control execution outside the constitutional legislative process.

Background

The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, commonly called Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, sought to eliminate federal deficits through progressively lower deficit targets. If projected deficits exceeded the statutory target, the Act required automatic, across-the-board spending cuts—half from defense and half from nondefense programs, subject to specified exemptions.

Under the Act’s principal procedure, the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office would calculate projected deficits and necessary reductions. They reported to the Comptroller General, who reviewed their work and sent his own binding report to the President. The President then had to issue a sequestration order incorporating the Comptroller General’s determinations without modification. The Act also supplied a fallback process: if the reporting procedure was invalidated, a congressional joint resolution would supply the basis for a sequestration order.

Congressman Mike Synar and other Members of Congress sued, along with the National Treasury Employees Union and an affected union member. A three-judge District Court held that the automatic reduction procedure violated separation of powers because the Comptroller General performed executive functions while remaining removable by Congress through joint resolution for specified causes. It invalidated the reporting provisions, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether any plaintiff had Article III standing to challenge the Act.

Holding

Yes. The affected union member had standing because the Act’s operation suspended a scheduled increase in employment benefits.

Reasoning

Standing requires a concrete injury. The Court held that at least one member of the National Treasury Employees Union faced an actual financial injury because the Act suspended a scheduled benefit increase. That injury was sufficient under Article III and the Act’s judicial-review provision.

Because one plaintiff had standing, the Court did not need to decide whether the Union itself or the Member-plaintiffs also had standing. The Court therefore proceeded directly to the constitutional merits.

Issue #2

Whether Congress may give the Comptroller General authority to execute the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act while retaining statutory power to remove him other than by impeachment.

Holding

No. Congress may not retain removal authority over an officer charged with executing the laws, except through impeachment, and then vest that officer with executive power.

Reasoning

The Constitution separates legislative, executive, and judicial power to protect liberty. Congress enacts laws, but after enacting them it may control their execution only by passing new legislation, not by retaining direct control over the officials who carry out the law.

The Comptroller General was appointed by the President with Senate confirmation, but the governing statute allowed Congress to remove him by joint resolution for permanent disability, inefficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance, a felony, or moral turpitude. Although the President could veto a joint resolution, Congress could override that veto. The Court treated this as congressional removal authority beyond impeachment.

The Court regarded the specified grounds for removal as broad enough to create constitutional subservience to Congress. An officer who knows that Congress can remove him for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance has reason to conform his conduct to Congress’s will. Structural separation-of-powers protections do not depend on a court’s prediction that Congress will exercise its power benignly or rarely.

History reinforced that conclusion. Congress created the Comptroller General and the General Accounting Office as instruments to serve Congress in auditing and overseeing public expenditures. Congress and past Comptrollers General had consistently described the office as part of, or an agent of, the Legislative Branch.

Myers held that Congress may not participate in the removal of executive officers, and Humphrey’s Executor did not authorize congressional removal. Humphrey’s Executor concerned Congress’s ability to limit the President’s removal power over an independent commissioner; it did not permit Congress itself to retain removal power. INS v. Chadha likewise showed that Congress cannot retain control over execution of a law outside constitutionally prescribed legislative action.

Issue #3

Whether the Comptroller General’s duties under the Act were merely ministerial or instead amounted to execution of the law.

Holding

The duties were executive functions because they required the Comptroller General to interpret the statute, make factual and budgetary determinations, and dictate binding spending reductions.

Reasoning

The Comptroller General was not simply transmitting calculations made by OMB and CBO. He had to exercise independent judgment about projected revenues, expenditures, deficits, and program-specific reductions, and he had to explain any disagreement with the directors’ joint report.

Applying statutory standards to facts, interpreting the Act’s requirements, and determining the precise reductions required are classic acts of executing a law. The Act expressly made the Comptroller General’s determinations controlling.

The President had to issue a sequestration order consistent with the Comptroller General’s report in all respects and could not modify or recalculate the Comptroller General’s estimates, determinations, or percentages. Thus, the Comptroller General effectively directed the legally binding cuts, even though the President formally issued the order.

Because Congress retained removal authority over an official performing those executive functions, Congress had effectively retained control over the law’s execution. That arrangement violated separation of powers.

Issue #4

What remedy followed from the unconstitutional assignment of executive power to the Comptroller General.

Holding

The Court invalidated the Act’s reporting procedures involving the Comptroller General and allowed the Act’s express fallback provisions to take effect.

Reasoning

The appellants urged the Court to sever the 1921 provision allowing congressional removal of the Comptroller General instead of invalidating the Gramm-Rudman reporting procedure. The Court declined because doing so would substantially recast the Comptroller General’s office, potentially making it subordinate to the Executive Branch and upsetting a statutory structure Congress had maintained for decades.

The Act itself supplied the controlling evidence of congressional intent. It expressly provided that an alternative process would become operative if any reporting procedure in § 251 was invalidated. Under that process, Congress would consider a joint resolution based on OMB and CBO reports, and a duly enacted resolution could support a Presidential sequestration order.

The Court therefore affirmed the invalidation of the reporting procedure rather than perform the proposed statutory surgery. It stayed its judgment for up to 60 days so that Congress could implement the fallback process.

Concurrences

Justice Stevens

Reasoning

Justice Stevens agreed that the challenged provisions were unconstitutional, but he rejected the majority’s focus on congressional removal power and on labeling the Comptroller General’s work “executive.” In his view, the decisive point was that the Comptroller General was properly understood as an agent of Congress because his longstanding statutory responsibilities principally served Congress and Congress had repeatedly placed the GAO in the Legislative Branch.

The Comptroller General’s Gramm-Rudman responsibilities were not ministerial. They required consequential policy judgments about projected revenues, expenditures, economic conditions, and program-specific cuts. His report had binding national consequences because the President was required to follow it without alteration.

Congress may delegate authority to executive or independent agencies under appropriate standards, but it may not evade Article I’s lawmaking procedures by delegating binding national policymaking to one of its own components or agents. When Congress or its agent makes policy that binds the Nation, bicameral passage and presentment to the President are required.

The Act’s fallback provision confirmed this principle. It required a joint resolution, passed by both Houses and presented to the President, before the same budgetary determinations could acquire binding legal effect. Thus, the constitutional defect was that Congress had assigned binding policymaking to its own agent without using the constitutionally required legislative process.

Dissents

Justice White

Reasoning

Justice White argued that the Court adopted an excessively formalistic approach to separation of powers. He accepted that the Comptroller General’s tasks could be described as executive because they involved implementing the statute, but he maintained that Congress may assign many executive functions to officers not removable at will by the President, as Humphrey’s Executor and Wiener demonstrate.

The budget-cutting authority did not intrude on a core presidential power. Appropriations and the level of federal spending are principally legislative matters, and Gramm-Rudman supplied detailed criteria intended to minimize discretionary policymaking. Congress reasonably chose an independent officer to apply those criteria without political bias from the President or Congress.

Justice White rejected the claim that the Comptroller General was Congress’s agent merely because Congress could remove him for cause by joint resolution. The statute did not permit at-will removal; it required notice, a hearing, and one of several stated grounds. More importantly, a joint resolution required bicameralism and presentment, so the President could block removal absent a two-thirds override in both Houses.

In practical terms, the removal provision made the Comptroller General highly independent rather than subservient. It had never been used, and removal was sufficiently difficult that it posed no realistic danger of congressional aggrandizement. Justice White would have upheld the statute because it did not genuinely threaten the constitutional division between legislative and executive authority.

Justice Blackmun

Reasoning

Justice Blackmun agreed that direct congressional participation in removing an officer vested with the Act’s budget-reduction powers might raise a serious separation-of-powers problem. But he rejected the majority’s premise that the removal provision made the Comptroller General realistically subservient to Congress, and he agreed with Justice White that the Comptroller General could constitutionally exercise these functions without serving at the President’s pleasure.

His principal disagreement concerned remedy. The plaintiffs challenged the Gramm-Rudman automatic-reduction provisions, not the 65-year-old removal provision. But the order in which litigants framed the challenge should not determine which of two allegedly incompatible statutes a court invalidates.

The Court should instead choose the remedy that least disrupts Congress’s objectives. The Act’s fallback clause showed that Congress preferred a weakened deficit-control process to none, but it did not show that Congress preferred invalidating the central 1985 program over losing an unused removal power from 1921.

In Justice Blackmun’s view, invalidating the congressional-removal provision would have caused far less disruption. Congress had never used that removal authority, and the historical record showed that the Comptroller General’s value lay chiefly in his independence from both political branches. He would preserve the central deficit-reduction mechanism and refuse to permit congressional removal if it were ever attempted.