Ameron, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
610 F. Supp. 750, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19467, 32 Cont. Cas. Fed. 73,627 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The President's constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" prohibits the Executive Branch from unilaterally declaring a duly enacted statute unconstitutional and refusing to enforce it; this power of judicial review is vested exclusively in the Judiciary.
Facts:
- Congress passed the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), which included a provision automatically staying the award of a government contract if an unsuccessful bidder filed a protest with the Comptroller General.
- President Reagan signed CICA into law but simultaneously issued a statement objecting to the stay provisions, believing they unconstitutionally delegated executive power to a legislative officer.
- The President instructed the Attorney General to advise executive agencies on how to comply with the law in a manner the Executive Branch deemed consistent with the Constitution.
- David Stockman, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), issued a bulletin directing all executive agencies to disregard the automatic stay provisions of CICA based on the Executive's internal determination of unconstitutionality.
- Ameron, Inc. submitted a bid for a contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
- The Army Corps rejected Ameron's bid.
- Ameron filed a timely bid protest with the Comptroller General, an action that under the text of CICA should have triggered an automatic stay of the contract award.
- In accordance with the OMB bulletin, the Army Corps intended to award the contract to another bidder despite Ameron's protest, refusing to honor the CICA stay.
Procedural Posture:
- Ameron, Inc. sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
- Ameron filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the Army Corps from awarding the contract pending the Comptroller General's review of its bid protest.
- The District Court granted the preliminary injunction, finding CICA's stay provisions likely constitutional and ordering the defendants to halt work on the contract.
- Following the court's order, the Comptroller General reviewed and ultimately denied Ameron's protest.
- Plaintiff-intervenors (including members of Congress) and Ameron then moved for summary judgment to obtain a final ruling on CICA's constitutionality.
- The defendants (the Executive Branch) filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on the same issue and also moved to dissolve the preliminary injunction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Executive Branch have the constitutional authority to declare an Act of Congress unconstitutional and order its agencies not to comply with it, prior to a judicial ruling on the matter?
Opinions:
Majority - Ackerman, J.
No. The Executive Branch does not have the constitutional authority to declare an Act of Congress unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it. Under the doctrine of separation of powers and the principle of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison, it is exclusively the province of the Judiciary to determine the constitutionality of a law. The President's duty under Article II, Section 3 to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" requires enforcement of a statute as written unless and until it is struck down by a court. The Executive's position amounts to a claim of a 'suspending power' over legislation, a power rejected by the English Bill of Rights and the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Kendall v. United States. Therefore, the Executive Branch must comply with the CICA stay provisions as mandated by law and this Court's orders. Furthermore, the CICA stay provisions themselves are constitutional because the Comptroller General, though a legislative officer, is appointed by the Executive, which distinguishes this case from precedents where legislative bodies unconstitutionally arrogated purely executive powers.
Analysis:
This decision represents a powerful judicial defense of the principle of judicial supremacy against a significant assertion of executive power. It squarely rejects the notion that the President can effectively exercise a 'line-item veto' over statutes already signed into law by declaring portions unconstitutional and refusing enforcement. The court's reasoning reinforces the classic understanding of separation of powers established in Marbury v. Madison, solidifying the judiciary's role as the final arbiter of constitutional questions. This ruling created a direct constitutional confrontation between the Executive and Judicial branches, setting a precedent that executive non-enforcement of a law based on the executive's own constitutional interpretation is itself an unconstitutional act.
Unlock the full brief for Ameron, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers