5 questions about John Boehnerfs lawsuit against Barack Obama
By: Josh Gerstein
July 16, 2014 05:03 AM EDT - POLITICO
The GOP-led House is set to take its first big step Wednesday toward
launching a high-profile lawsuit charging President Barack Obama with
failing to carry out his constitutional duty to enforce the law.
Republicans have complained about Obamafs actions on issues ranging
from immigration to welfare to the minimum wage, but the suit is expected
to focus narrowly on the Affordable Care Act and the decision to defer for
one to two years a requirement that employers provide health insurance
starting in 2014.
The House Rules Committee will debate the merits of the potential
lawsuit at a hearing Wednesday morning.
Regardless of what the lawsuit looks like, Obama and his allies are
laughing off the litigation, which they believe will make liberals angry
and strike swing voters as a waste of time and money on the part of
congressional Republicans. gTheir big idea has been to sue me,h the
president said mockingly during a stop in McLean, Virginia, on Tuesday.
gThatfs what theyfre spending time on — a political stunt that wastes
Americafs time and taxpayer dollars.h
House Speaker John Boehner has painted the effort in principled terms.
gThis isnft about Republicans versus Democrats; itfs about the legislative
branch versus the executive branch, and above all protecting the
Constitution,h the speaker said last week. gThe current president believes
he has the power to make his own laws — at times even boasting about
it.h
Here is POLITICOfs look at the legal questions surrounding the
lawsuit:
1) What chance does it have?
Not much, according to many legal analysts. Even some sympathetic to
claims of executive branch overreach say Boehnerfs lawsuit is the
equivalent of a triple-bank shot.
gItfs a hare-brained idea,h said Stan Brand, a Democrat and former
general counsel to the House of Representatives. gI think therefs a case
to be made that Obama has exceeded the recent history of executive
overreaching, but I donft know that itfs remediable in court — or should
be.h
The key problem for the House to overcome is a legal concept called
standing, which requires that the party bringing a suit demonstrate an
actual, concrete injury that goes beyond a general interest in seeing the
law enforced.
gTherefs just no way a court would find that the House of
Representatives as an institution has been harmed by President Obama
attempting in good faith to implement the ACA,h said Catholic University
law professor Victor Williams.
But proponents of the suit insist that the very fact that itfs hard to
find an individual injured enough to sue supports the idea that the House
can do so. gIf we have that kind of system [where no one can sue to
enforce the law], the president doesnft need Congress anymore, all he
needs is the pen and the phone — or maybe only the pen,h said Chapman
University law school professor Ronald Rotunda.
Even if a judge buys that the House has been injured institutionally,
there are a variety of other hurdles, like the courtsf traditional
reluctance to entertain questions deemed gpoliticalh in nature and the
judiciaryfs ability to fashion a remedy for Obamafs alleged deviation from
the law.
Defenders say even if the House suit dodges all those roadblocks,
Obamafs action — or inaction — on enforcing the ACA is well within
executive authority. They point to prior cases where presidents or other
executive officials have deferred enforcement of new legal requirements,
such as a decision by President George W. Bush in 2006 to not penalize
seniors for missing a deadline to sign up for prescription drug coverage
under Medicare.
gThis is a routine feature of implementing complicated laws like the
Affordable Care Act. All administrations have done it,h said Simon Lazarus
of the Constitutional Accountability Center, whofs set to testify against
the suit Wednesday.
2) Whatfs the best-case scenario for the GOP?
Perhaps the most significant reason not to dismiss the House suit as a
sure loser is that other cases the experts have scoffed at in recent years
— such as the challenge to Obamacarefs individual mandate and another over
recess appointments — have gone all the way to the Supreme Court,
resulting in losses or very close calls for the administration.
gI never would have thought, 10 years ago or even five years ago, that
recess appointments would ever get litigated at the Supreme Court,h
Rotunda said. gIf there is a theme here, itfs when it gets to the Supreme
Court, the president loses,h the professor said, pointing to a string of
defeats at the court for presidents from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton to
Obama on executive power issues.
There have also been signs in recent years that the Supreme Court is
more willing to see the judiciary wade into politically sensitive
fights.
In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled, 8-1, that lower courts were wrong to
bow out of a lawsuit challenging the State Departmentfs refusal to comply
with a law requiring it to enter the word gIsraelh to the place of birth
on U.S. passports when an American born in Jerusalem so requested.
At oral arguments in the case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she was
reluctant to allow the president to gignoreh the law.
gIf we call this a political question and donft address the merits, the
outcome is that the president is saying that hefs entitled to ignore the
Congress. I donft know what kind of message that sends, but itfs a little
unsettling that a court charged with enforcing the laws passed by Congress
[is] basically saying we are not going to determine whether this law is
constitutional or unconstitutional,h Sotomayor said.
But Justice Antonin Scalia has said Congress doesnft really need the
courts in a fight with the chief executive.
gI would let c them conduct the usual interbranch hand wrestling that
goes on all the time, which probably means that if Congress cares enough
Congress will win, because c it has an innumerable number of clubs with
which to beat the executive,h Scalia said at the same 2011 argument. gWhy
donft we just let them go at it?h
Some also see the Supreme Courtfs willingness to let the House defend
the Defense of Marriage Act at the court last year — albeit unsuccessfully
— as a sign it would sustain the Housefs right to sue.
Critics of Boehnerfs planned lawsuit note that it lacks what both the
passport and DOMA cases had at least at some point: an individual American
plaintiff who could claim some direct harm from the alleged
illegality.
Two district courts have let the House pursue lawsuits in recent years
seeking to force executive branch officials to testify or fork over
documents, but higher courts havenft confronted the issue, and itfs not
clear whether a suit aimed at mandating enforcement of a law is the same
as one seeking to enforce a subpoena.
3) Could the suit backfire?
One odd aspect of the suit is that, if the GOP were to prevail,
businesses could be hit with new burdens and costs sooner than they
otherwise would. The case could also set a precedent that could come back
to bite businesses on a series of other fronts.
Environmental groups, food safety advocates and others routinely go to
court when agencies miss deadlines to issue regulations to start enforcing
all kinds of laws passed by Congress. If the House suit succeeds, judges
might feel emboldened to order agencies to put in place all kinds of
measures the executive branch has intentionally or unintentionally delayed
— often under pressure from industry.
gIt would be a bad thing for business interests traditionally allied
with the Republican Party c if the theory is the etake caref clause of the
Constitution requires robotic enforcement of every specific statutory
deadline,h Lazarus said.
Indeed, administrations of all ideologies often miss all kinds of
deadlines, sometimes for many, many years. One report the Treasury
Department was required by law to submit to Congress by the end of 2006 is
more than seven and a half years late, Bloomberg reported.
Some proponents of the suit also see a perverse downside for liberals
if the case fails because that would seem to endorse the idea that a
president is free to disregard the law.
gWhenever I meet Democratic members, I say, eYou will rue the day you
helped create the idea that the president has the authority to suspend
environmental law and you have nothing to say about that cf Privately,
they agree,h said liberal George Washington University law professor
Jonathan Turley, whofs set to testify in favor of the suit Wednesday.
And if Congress can sue the executive branch, why not the other way
around? Sustaining a congressional suit against the president would make a
suit pointing the other way fair game, some argue.
gYou could imagine the president suing the Senate, saying it has the
duty to vote up or down on his nominees,h former Clinton administration
acting solicitor general Walter Dellinger said. gThatfs not the kind of
matter courts should be involved in.h
4) The House wins. Then what?
Another complication for the House suit is figuring out what winning
would look like.
A judge could agree with the House that the IRS should have started
enforcing the employer mandate at the beginning of this year, but then
what? If House lawyers canft tell a judge how he or she can make the
executive branch comply with the law, then the suit could be dismissed at
an early stage.
While the requirement is now set to kick in for larger employers at the
beginning of next year, those with 50 to 100 workers are getting another
yearfs grace from the administration. Would a judge nix that, too? And if
a judge ordered the requirement enforced across the board, would he or she
insist that every violator be penalized? Or perhaps set a numerical quota
for enforcement?
gThen youfre starting to get into judicial receivership of the
executive branch,h Brand said.
Backers of the suit counter that an order requiring withdrawal of the
IRS guidance deferring enforcement of the mandate would be enough to get
most employers to adhere to the law.
And from a political point of view, a judgefs ruling that Obama had
exceeded his authority would be a blow to the president even if that legal
conclusion didnft have much practical impact.
5) How long will this all take?
The political payoff of Boehnerfs suit in terms of leveraging
anti-Obama sentiment in the GOP for the midterms will come long before the
legal payoff, if there is any. It seems doubtful the case will be fully
briefed by November, let alone argued or decided in the district
court.
One benchmark: The lawsuit the House filed in 2012 to force Attorney
General Eric Holder to fork over documents about the response to Operation
Fast and Furious is still pending in the district court and unresolved
nearly two years later.
gThese things are impossible to do quickly,h Brand said.
Given the near certainty of an appeal and a Supreme Court petition,
therefs a good chance the suit wonft be definitively decided before the
employer mandate is set to kick in next year or even by the time Obama is
scheduled to leave office in 2017. That raises the possibility that after
the mandate takes effect, the courts may wind up resolving the lawsuit
against Obama by tossing it out as moot.
© 2014 POLITICO LLC