Opening Act Ready in House v. Obama

Lawyers on both sides in the GOP’s proposed lawsuit against the president will argue Wednesday before the House Rules Committee.

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 18: Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) speaks following a meeting of the House Republican conference June 18, 2014 at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (D-CA) is the favorite to be elected to the position of House Majority Leader tomorrow to replace Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) who was defeated in primary race last week.
National Journal
Billy House
Add to Briefcase
Billy House
July 15, 2014, 5:51 p.m.

In an un­likely set­ting for polit­ic­al theat­er—the cramped meet­ing room of the House Rules Com­mit­tee—law­yers for and against Speak­er John Boehner’s pro­posed law­suit against Pres­id­ent Obama will stage a kind of mock tri­al Wed­nes­day to ex­pound upon the plan’s pos­sib­il­it­ies and pit­falls.

Al­though the testi­mony will be equally di­vided between the pros and the cons, the out­come is in­ev­it­able. With a 9-4 ma­jor­ity on the Rules Com­mit­tee, Re­pub­lic­ans are cer­tain to fol­low their lead­er’s sug­ges­tion and write a res­ol­u­tion for the full House to con­sider call­ing for lit­ig­a­tion against the pres­id­ent.

In fact, a draft res­ol­u­tion has already been pre­pared, stat­ing that “the Speak­er of the House may ini­ti­ate civil ac­tions in fed­er­al court on be­half of the House seek­ing de­clar­at­ory or in­junct­ive re­lief” against the na­tion’s chief ex­ec­ut­ive for fail­ing to act “in a man­ner con­sist­ent with that of­fi­cial’s du­ties un­der the Con­sti­tu­tion and laws of the United States.”

For stra­tegic leg­al reas­ons, Boehner says the House will be su­ing Obama spe­cific­ally for delay­ing en­force­ment of the Af­ford­able Care Act’s em­ploy­er man­date last year, on grounds that do­ing so without con­gres­sion­al ap­prov­al vi­ol­ated the Con­sti­tu­tion. But Re­pub­lic­ans have com­plaints ex­tend­ing to Obama’s ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tions more gen­er­ally across a wide ho­ri­zon of areas, from en­vir­on­ment­al to im­mig­ra­tion policy.

The four ex­pert wit­nesses lined up for the Wed­nes­day morn­ing hear­ing are all heavy­weights on con­sti­tu­tion­al law, but the two pro­ponents of the law­suit, Eliza­beth Price Fo­ley and Jonath­an Tur­ley, have been mes­mer­iz­ing Re­pub­lic­ans with the idea for months.

Fo­ley, a pro­fess­or at the Flor­ida In­ter­na­tion­al Uni­versity Col­lege of Law, has been one of the con­sult­ants help­ing Boehner and the Re­pub­lic­ans de­vise their strategy. She is the au­thor of three books, a fre­quent op-ed writer, and serves on the ed­it­or­i­al board of the Cato Su­preme Court Re­view.

Tur­ley is a schol­ar at George Wash­ing­ton Uni­versity Law School whose in­sights have made him a nearly ubi­quit­ous pres­ence as a com­ment­at­or on na­tion­al TV shows. His own cases have run a gamut from rep­res­ent­ing a judge in his im­peach­ment tri­al on the Sen­ate floor to fil­ing a leg­al chal­lenge against the Liby­an war on be­half of 10 mem­bers of Con­gress. He has pre­vi­ously test­i­fied on what he sees as an erosion of the sep­ar­a­tion of powers in our demo­crat­ic sys­tem.

Pre­pared testi­mony by Tur­ley made avail­able Tues­day has him call­ing the GOP law­suit “a his­tor­ic step to ad­dress the grow­ing crisis in our con­sti­tu­tion­al sys­tem—a shift­ing of the bal­ance of power with­in our tri­part­ite sys­tem in fa­vor of a now dom­in­ant Ex­ec­ut­ive Branch.

“While both Con­gress and the courts have lost au­thor­ity over the dec­ades, the Le­gis­lat­ive Branch has lost the most with the rise of a type of über-pres­id­ency,” Tur­ley will say.

In a blog post on Tues­day pre­view­ing the testi­mony, Boehner’s staff echoed that ar­gu­ment and noted that the speak­er has said, “this isn’t about Re­pub­lic­ans versus Demo­crats; it’s about the Le­gis­lat­ive Branch versus the Ex­ec­ut­ive Branch, and above all pro­tect­ing the Con­sti­tu­tion.”

Coun­ter­ing the ar­gu­ments for the law­suit will be two ex­perts tapped by Demo­crats, Si­mon Laz­arus and Wal­ter Del­linger.

Laz­arus, who served as as­so­ci­ate coun­sel to Pres­id­ent Jimmy Carter’s do­mest­ic policy staff, is now seni­or coun­sel at the Con­sti­tu­tion­al Ac­count­ab­il­ity Cen­ter, a pro­gress­ive pub­lic-in­terest think tank and leg­al cen­ter. He will testi­fy that Obama ac­ted ap­pro­pri­ately in post­pon­ing the em­ploy­er man­date in the Af­ford­able Care Act be­cause he was not try­ing to un­der­mine a law he op­posed but was try­ing to im­prove its im­ple­ment­a­tion.

“As a leg­al as well as a prac­tic­al mat­ter, that’s well with­in his job de­scrip­tion,” Laz­arus states in his pre­pared testi­mony.

Del­linger, a former as­sist­ant at­tor­ney gen­er­al and act­ing so­li­cit­or gen­er­al in the Clin­ton ad­min­is­tra­tion, is a part­ner at O’Melveny & My­ers and is on leave from a pro­fess­or­ship at Duke Uni­versity. He will ar­gue, flat-out, that the House lacks the au­thor­ity to bring such a law­suit—es­pe­cially without the Sen­ate—and that pas­sage of the planned res­ol­u­tion “does noth­ing to change that.”

Fol­low­ing are sum­mar­ies of the testi­mony from all four wit­nesses.


“Con­gres­sion­al stand­ing is pos­sible un­der the right cir­cum­stances,” Fo­ley will testi­fy, in­clud­ing in in­stances where no one per­son has been suf­fi­ciently harmed to give them stand­ing to sue. She provides a four-part test for Boehner and Re­pub­lic­ans to es­tab­lish such a right to sue. One part of the test is that “the law­suit should be ex­pli­citly au­thor­ized by a ma­jor­ity of the House; it can­not be a ‘sore loser’ suit ini­ti­ated by an ad hoc group of le­gis­lat­ors.”


Tur­ley be­lieves the Su­preme Court has made “a bloody mess out of stand­ing.” But he ar­gues that pur­su­ing es­tab­lish­ment of re­quired leg­al stand­ing “rep­res­ents one of the most prom­ising means to re­align the three branches.” And he ar­gues that mem­bers of Con­gress do have claim to unique in­jury and to be­ing le­git­im­ate lit­ig­ants.

“To put it simply, they have skin in the game when it comes to an inter-branch fight,” he ar­gues.


Laz­arus will ar­gue that the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion has not post­poned the em­ploy­er man­date out of policy op­pos­i­tion to the Af­ford­able Care Act, “nor to any spe­cif­ic pro­vi­sions to it.”

Rather, he says Obama has au­thor­ized a “minor tem­por­ary course cor­rec­tion re­gard­ing in­di­vidu­al ACA pro­vi­sions, ne­ces­sary in his Ad­min­is­tra­tion’s judg­ment to faith­fully ex­ecute the over­all stat­ute, oth­er re­lated laws, and the pur­poses of the ACA’s framers.”


Del­linger not only ar­gues that the House does not have stand­ing to sue, but that a law­suit is an ex­treme meas­ure for deal­ing with the ad­min­is­tra­tion.

He will as­sert that Con­gress already has a “full panoply” of oth­er rem­ed­ies at its dis­pos­al to pres­sure the ex­ec­ut­ive branch to­ward its in­ter­pret­a­tion of the law—”not least of which is the power to amend the law to lim­it ex­ec­ut­ive dis­cre­tion.”

What We're Following See More »
Lieberman Withdraws from Consideration for FBI Job
3 days ago
Trump Tells NATO Countries To Pay Up
3 days ago
Russians Discussed Influencing Trump Through Aides
3 days ago

"American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers." The conversations centered around Paul Manafort, who was campaign chairman at the time, and Michael Flynn, former national security adviser and then a close campaign surrogate. Both men have been tied heavily with Russia and Flynn is currently at the center of the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Ethics Cops Clear Mueller to Work on Trump Case
5 days ago

"Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been cleared by U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts to oversee an investigation into possible collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign and Russia." Some had speculated that the White House would use "an ethics rule limiting government attorneys from investigating people their former law firm represented" to trip up Mueller's appointment. Jared Kushner is a client of Mueller's firm, WilmerHale. "Although Mueller has now been cleared by the Justice Department, the White House may still use his former law firm's connection to Manafort and Kushner to undermine the findings of his investigation, according to two sources close to the White House."

Senate Intel to Subpoena Two of Flynn’s Businesses
5 days ago

Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and ranking member Mark Warner (D-VA) will subpoena two businesses owned by former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Burr said, "We would like to hear from General Flynn. We'd like to see his documents. We'd like him to tell his story because he publicly said he had a story to tell."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.