- Nonacquiescence
-
In law, nonacquiescence is when one branch of the government fails to comply with the decision of another. In the context of lawsuits, executive nonacquiescence in judicial decisions can lead to bizarre Kafkaesque situations where parties discover to their chagrin that their legal victory over the government is an empty one. Nonacquiescence can also possibly lead to a constitutional crisis, given certain critical situations and decisions.
In the United States, certain federal agencies are notorious for practicing nonacquiescence (essentially, ignoring court decisions that go against them).[1] The Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service are particularly well-known for such conduct.[2] Although executive nonacquiescence has been heavily criticized by the federal courts,[3] the U.S. Congress has not yet been able to pass a bill formally prohibiting or punishing such behavior.
In one of the most serious instances of nonacquiesence in the U.S., U.S. President Andrew Jackson ignored the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Georgia had stolen Cherokee lands for the Cherokee Land Lottery in the early 1830s, when the first gold rush occurred. They were then forced off of their own land on to the Trail of Tears and defrauded in the Treaty of New Echota. The president was never officially held responsible for his blatant contempt of the court, about which he reportedly said: "They have made their decision, now let them enforce it".[citation needed]
Notes
- ^ Bradley C. Canon, "Studying bureaucratic implementation of judicial policies in the United States: conceptual and methodological approaches," in Judicial Review and Bureaucratic Impact: International and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, eds. Marc L. M. Hertogh and Simon Halliday, 76-100 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 91-92.
- ^ The SSA publishes Acquiescence Rulings and the IRS publishes Actions on Decisions, in which they state whether they will obey a particular court decision or not.
- ^ See, e.g., Hutchison v. Chater, 99 F.3d 286, 287-88 (8th Cir. 1996); Allegheny General Hospital v. NLRB, 608 F.2d 965 (3d Cir. 1979); and Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir.), rev'd on other grounds sub nomine Heckler v. Lopez, 463 U.S. 1328 (1983).
See also
- Acquiescence, an unrelated legal term
Categories:- Legal doctrines and principles
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.