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
© 2025 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 AllBest Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readCrypto Groups Sue IRS Over Decentralized Finance Reporting Rule
SEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Trending Stories
- 1'I Couldn't Believe It': Attorney Jim Walden Petitions US Court for Right to Run for NYC Mayor as an Independent
- 2Pittsburgh Jury Tries to Award $22M Against J&J in Talc Case Despite Handing Up Defense Verdict
- 3Judiciary Panel Questions Authority to Make Attorney Admissions Rule for US Trial Courts
- 4A&O Shearman Lost 15 Asia Partners in a Year
- 5Spin-Off Firm Leaves Reed Smith Without Richmond Lobbying Practice
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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