|
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1252 and, if
presented to the President in its current form, the Attorney General would
recommend that he veto the bill for the reasons described below.
H.R. 1252 would give parties in civil cases the right to remove the
judge to whom the case is originally assigned without reason and have it
reassigned to another judge. Such a procedure threatens to undermine
the independence of the Federal Judiciary that Article III of the
Constitution was intended to secure, as well as undermine the public's
confidence in life-tenured and constitutionally appointed Federal judges as
impartial adjudicators. Litigants assuredly will engage in judge and forum
shopping -- sometimes with improper motives. Additionally, these
peremptory challenges would add further delay to the civil litigation
system and erode the rule of law. (Section 6)
In addition, H.R. 1252 purports to restrict the remedial powers of
Article III Federal courts to enforce constitutional rights. Under
current law, Federal district courts may compel State and local governments
to levy taxes in excess of their State law taxing powers when such a remedy
would be required to enforce a Federal constitutional right. In addition,
Federal courts have long been held to possess the equitable authority to
compel State and local governments to exercise their existing taxing
authority even when the Constitution would not require imposition of such a
remedy. The bill's proposed restrictions would curtail the equitable
discretion of Federal district courts, as well as deprive them of the power
to provide a remedy for certain constitutional violations. The latter
deprivation of power raises constitutional concerns and would be subject to
reasonable constitutional challenge. (Section 5)
Finally, the bill would require the use of a three-judge panel for
certain injunctions and declaratory actions. This provision would
adversely affect the operation of several preemptive Federal statutes in
situations where a State has passed a referendum that is contrary to
Federal law. This provision is objectionable because it would provide
unprecedented direct and immediate access to the Supreme Court, even when
the three-judge court denies injunctive relief. (Section 2)
|
