Dalton v. Specter
511 U.S. 462, 114 S. Ct. 1719, 1994 U.S. LEXIS 3778 (1994)
Rule of Law:
Actions taken by the President are not reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the President is not an 'agency' under the Act, nor are preliminary recommendations 'final agency action' if subject to the President's approval. Furthermore, when a statute commits a decision to the President's discretion, judicial review of that decision is not available, even if claims allege the President exceeded his statutory authority.
Facts:
- Congress enacted the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (1990 Act) to create an elaborate, expedited process for closing and realigning military installations within the United States.
- The 1990 Act required the Secretary of Defense to prepare closure and realignment recommendations based on established criteria.
- An independent Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (Commission) was tasked with holding public hearings, assessing the Secretary's recommendations, and submitting its own recommendations to the President.
- The President was required to approve or disapprove, in their entirety, the Commission's recommendations within two weeks of receiving them.
- If the President approved, he would submit the recommendations to Congress, which could then pass a joint resolution of disapproval within 45 days.
- If Congress did not disapprove, the Secretary of Defense was mandated to close all military installations recommended for closure by the Commission.
- In April 1991, the Secretary recommended the closure of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard.
- The Commission subsequently agreed with the Secretary's recommendation that the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard should be closed, including it in its report.
- In July 1991, President Bush approved the Commission's recommendations, and the House of Representatives rejected a proposed joint resolution of disapproval.
- Respondents, including shipyard employees, their unions, Members of Congress, and state and city officials, sought to enjoin the Secretary of Defense from carrying out the decision to close the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondents filed an action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the 1990 Act in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking to enjoin the Secretary of Defense from closing the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety, finding that the 1990 Act precluded judicial review and that the political question doctrine foreclosed judicial intervention.
- A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part (`Specter v. Garrett, 971 F. 2d 936 (1992)`), holding that certain procedural claims were reviewable.
- The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of `Franklin v. Massachusetts` (`O’Keefe v. Specter, 506 U. S. 969 (1992)`).
- On remand, the same divided panel of the Court of Appeals adhered to its earlier decision (`Specter v. Garrett, 995 F. 2d 404 (1993)`), holding that `Franklin` did not affect the reviewability of respondents' procedural claims.
- Petitioners again sought review from the Supreme Court.
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 Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or other constitutional/common law principles allow for judicial review of challenges to the President's decision to close military bases under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (1990 Act), including claims that the Secretary or Commission failed to follow statutory procedures?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No, judicial review of the President's decision to close military bases under the 1990 Act is not available under the APA or through a claim that the President exceeded his statutory authority. The Court held that the reports submitted by the Secretary and the Commission are not 'final agency action' reviewable under the APA because the President has the ultimate authority to approve or disapprove them. Citing `Franklin v. Massachusetts`, the Court reiterated that the President is not an 'agency' for APA purposes, thus his actions are not directly reviewable under the Act. The Court distinguished claims that an executive official exceeded statutory authority from claims of constitutional violations, asserting that not every statutory overreach by the President is automatically a constitutional violation. Therefore, the exception in `Franklin` for constitutional review does not apply to claims of merely exceeding statutory authority. The Court emphasized that when a statute, like the 1990 Act, commits decision-making to the President's discretion without limiting his reasons for approval or disapproval, judicial review of that decision is unavailable, referencing `Dakota Central Telephone Co. v. South Dakota ex rel. Payne` and `Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S. S. Corp.` The 1990 Act places no conditions on the President's discretion to approve or disapprove the Commission's recommendations, and his authority is not contingent on the Secretary's or Commission's procedural compliance.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
No, judicial review of a base-closing decision is precluded under the 1990 Act, although this ruling does not necessarily foreclose other specific types of claims. Justice Blackmun concurred in the judgment and joined Justice Souter's opinion, agreeing that the 1990 Act precludes judicial review of a base-closing decision. He wrote separately to clarify the limited reach of the decision, noting that it does not foreclose judicial review of a claim that the President acted outside his statutory authority (e.g., adding a base to the list) or a timely claim seeking direct relief from a procedural violation (e.g., challenging a closed Commission meeting) that could be adjudicated without interfering with the statute's expedited schedule. He understood the majority's `Franklin` analysis not to preclude such a suit where a decision might 'directly affect' the rights of interested parties independent of ultimate Presidential review.
Concurring - Justice Souter
No, judicial review of challenges to the President's decision to close military bases under the 1990 Act is precluded due to the Act's text, structure, and purpose. Justice Souter joined Part II of the Court’s opinion, agreeing that the President acted within his unfettered discretion under the Act and that no constitutional claim was pleaded. He found it unnecessary to reach the 'final agency action' question from Part I because the Act's unique legislative scheme compels the conclusion that judicial review of the Commission's or Secretary's compliance is precluded. He cited the Act's strict, rigid deadlines for administrative review and Presidential action, the temporary nature of the Commission, the requirement for prompt implementation, and the 'all-or-nothing' feature (President and Congress must accept or reject the entire base-closing package). This structure, he reasoned, reflects congressional intent to prevent litigation from delaying or undermining the politically difficult base closure process. He also noted that the Act provides non-judicial opportunities for review (Comptroller General, President, Congress) and makes express, limited provision for judicial review of NEPA claims after the selection process, further implying preclusion of other types of review.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the limited scope of judicial review over executive actions, particularly those involving the President's discretionary powers under statute. It clarifies that the 'final agency action' requirement of the APA means courts generally cannot review preliminary steps in a process that culminates in a presidential decision. By strictly distinguishing claims of statutory overreach from constitutional violations, the Court narrows the avenues for challenging presidential actions in court, making it more difficult to seek judicial intervention based on alleged procedural flaws in statutory implementation. The ruling underscores Congress's ability to design administrative processes that limit or preclude judicial review, particularly when aiming for expedited and politically sensitive outcomes, as long as such limitations are permissible under the Constitution.
