Regulatory: Reorganizing the Executive Branch
If history repeats itself, Obama's recent request for Reorganization authority likely will face opposition.
February 15, 2011 at 07:00 PM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
President Obama has announced that he will ask Congress for authority to merge and reorganize Executive Branch agencies in order to make America more competitive. In doing so, he reopened one of the traditional fault lines between the Executive and Legislative Branches.
Reorganization authority is a special procedure under which the President issues a package of changes to consolidate agencies and to reallocate existing statutory powers among agencies, subject only to Congressional disapproval of his actions through a single up-or-down vote. Congress historically has resisted giving the President the ability to override its prior decisions about how authorities should be allocated within the Executive Branch.
Reorganization first became a political issue in 1937, when President Franklin Roosevelt requested that Congress give him authority to rationalize the many agencies created in the early days of the New Deal. The President proposed that, to promote economy in government, Congress should give him reorganization authority subject only to its right to disapprove his plan by passage of a “joint resolution,” a measure that would be presented to the President for approval and vetoed.
The President's request for Reorganization authority coincided with his proposal to add new members to the Supreme Court. His opponents characterized the two proposals as a step toward an imperial President who had just won a landslide reelection. Reorganization became an important issue in the 1938 Congressional elections, and the President suffered heavy losses. In 1939, Congress passed a watered down Reorganization law under which it could overturn the President's proposal by “concurrent resolution,” a measure passed by both Houses that is not subject to Presidential veto. This change in the disapproval mechanism effectively neutered the bill.
The Roosevelt Administration objected to the concurrent resolution or “legislative veto” disapproval mechanism as a violation of the President's constitutional authority to approve or veto all new laws. Despite persistent disagreement on this issue, subsequent Congresses renewed the Reorganization statute with legislative veto provisions. President Nixon used this authority to create new agencies that consolidated scattered powers, including EPA and the Office of Management and Budget.
In 1983, the Supreme Court held in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, that the legislative veto was unconstitutional and that any measure with the force of law has to be presented to the President for approval. Since Chadha, successive Presidents have not expended their political capital in seeking Reorganization authority because they understood that Congress would insist on affirmatively approving any White House action. In effect, this meant that any Presidential proposal to create a more rational agency structure would be considered through the normal legislative process, in which opponents of the existing arrangements would block the measure by opposing each measure separately.
President Obama has not proposed a procedure to address the Congressional insistence on maintaining influence over actions of Executive agencies that has stymied prior requests for Reorganization authority. The one novel feature of the President's request was the shift in the basis for this authority from economy in government to fostering American competitiveness in global markets. The President will pursue this initiative through quiet negotiations with Congress. It remains to be seen whether, after completing these consultations, the President actually will commit the political capital necessary to work a meaningful Reorganization measure through a divided Congress that is jealous of its institutional prerogatives.
John F. Cooney is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Venable.
Read John Cooney's previous column. Read John Cooney's next column.
President Obama has announced that he will ask Congress for authority to merge and reorganize Executive Branch agencies in order to make America more competitive. In doing so, he reopened one of the traditional fault lines between the Executive and Legislative Branches.
Reorganization authority is a special procedure under which the President issues a package of changes to consolidate agencies and to reallocate existing statutory powers among agencies, subject only to Congressional disapproval of his actions through a single up-or-down vote. Congress historically has resisted giving the President the ability to override its prior decisions about how authorities should be allocated within the Executive Branch.
Reorganization first became a political issue in 1937, when President Franklin Roosevelt requested that Congress give him authority to rationalize the many agencies created in the early days of the New Deal. The President proposed that, to promote economy in government, Congress should give him reorganization authority subject only to its right to disapprove his plan by passage of a “joint resolution,” a measure that would be presented to the President for approval and vetoed.
The President's request for Reorganization authority coincided with his proposal to add new members to the Supreme Court. His opponents characterized the two proposals as a step toward an imperial President who had just won a landslide reelection. Reorganization became an important issue in the 1938 Congressional elections, and the President suffered heavy losses. In 1939, Congress passed a watered down Reorganization law under which it could overturn the President's proposal by “concurrent resolution,” a measure passed by both Houses that is not subject to Presidential veto. This change in the disapproval mechanism effectively neutered the bill.
The Roosevelt Administration objected to the concurrent resolution or “legislative veto” disapproval mechanism as a violation of the President's constitutional authority to approve or veto all new laws. Despite persistent disagreement on this issue, subsequent Congresses renewed the Reorganization statute with legislative veto provisions. President Nixon used this authority to create new agencies that consolidated scattered powers, including EPA and the Office of Management and Budget.
In 1983, the Supreme Court held in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, that the legislative veto was unconstitutional and that any measure with the force of law has to be presented to the President for approval. Since Chadha, successive Presidents have not expended their political capital in seeking Reorganization authority because they understood that Congress would insist on affirmatively approving any White House action. In effect, this meant that any Presidential proposal to create a more rational agency structure would be considered through the normal legislative process, in which opponents of the existing arrangements would block the measure by opposing each measure separately.
President Obama has not proposed a procedure to address the Congressional insistence on maintaining influence over actions of Executive agencies that has stymied prior requests for Reorganization authority. The one novel feature of the President's request was the shift in the basis for this authority from economy in government to fostering American competitiveness in global markets. The President will pursue this initiative through quiet negotiations with Congress. It remains to be seen whether, after completing these consultations, the President actually will commit the political capital necessary to work a meaningful Reorganization measure through a divided Congress that is jealous of its institutional prerogatives.
John F. Cooney is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of
Read John Cooney's previous column. Read John Cooney's next column.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhy Seemingly Simple Off-Channel Communication Rules Still Vex Finance Industry
5 minute readSEC Enforcement Chief Grewal—Whose Hard Line on Crypto Tormented the Industry—Stepping Down
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250