Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:47:04.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Lawyer in the Executive Branch of Government

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Andrew C. Mayer*
Affiliation:
Public Land Review Commission
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The federal government has expanded so much in recent years, both in the number of its personnel, and in the number of functions it performs, that to refer to the executive branch as if it were a homogeneous group of departments and agencies is highly misleading. On the other hand, those structures have some features in common. Many of the larger executive departments, for instance, exercise a certain quasi-judicial power—as in Boards of Contract Appeals. Many of the larger departments promulgate rules which can and do have the force of law, and may be regarded as performing a quasi-legislative function. A substantial number of government lawyers spend much of their time in litigation before these boards, the regulatory agencies, or the courts. However, for the most part, the day-to-day routine of the government lawyer is not typically of an adversary nature. Every legal decision necessarily raises the possibility that it may ultimately be attacked in some form or other; however, the decisions with which this paper will deal are not attacked so much in proceedings which are adversary as in those which are investigative. And the culmination, in general, tends to strengthen the executive, rather than the reverse, for time is on its side; the modern world is too complicated to be run by a legislature.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 by the Law and Society Association.

References

Cases

BOWMAN v., UDALL (1965) F. Supp. 243: 672; F. 2d 364: 676 (affd); U.S. 385: 878 (cert, denied).Google Scholar
BUFORD v. HOUTZ (1890) U.S. 133: 320; S. Ct. 10: 305; L.Ed. 33: 618.Google Scholar
FAUSKE v. DEAN (1960) NW 2d 101: 769.Google Scholar
HARMON v. BRUCKER and ABRAMOWITZ v. BRUCKER (1958) U.S. 355: 579.Google Scholar
JOHNSON v. MARYLAND (1920) U.S. 254: 51.Google Scholar
LIGHT v. U.S. (1911) U.S. 220: 523; S. Ct. 31: 485; L.Ed. 55: 570.Google Scholar
McNEIL v. SEATON (1960) F. 2d 281: 931.Google Scholar
MILLER v. ARKANSAS (1956) U.S. 352: 187.Google Scholar
OMAN v. U.S. (1949) F. 2d 179: 738.Google Scholar
OSBORNE v. U.S. (1944) F. 2d 145: 892.Google Scholar
RED CANYON SHEEP CO. v. ICKES (1938) F. 2d 98: 308.Google Scholar

References

CANNON, C. (1962) Precedents in the House of Representatives, House Document 610, Eighty-seventh Congress, Second Session.Google Scholar
United States Department of the Interior (1968) A Report to the Public Land Law Review Commission on Public Land Management. March 29.Google Scholar
United States House of Representatives (1966) Subcommittee on Conservation and Credit of the Committee on Agriculture. Hearings. March 28.Google Scholar
United States Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Hearings on Review of the Taylor Grazing Act, Part 2. February 7, 8.Google Scholar