Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
kaggle-ho-012394House Oversight

1988 Ninth Circuit case cites President's refusal to enforce Competition-in Contracting Act

1988 Ninth Circuit case cites President's refusal to enforce Competition-in Contracting Act The passage references a historical court decision involving a presidential refusal to enforce a statute, but it provides no specific modern actors, transactions, or actionable leads. The information is already part of public case law and offers little investigative value. Key insights: President at the time refused to comply with provisions of the Competition-in Contracting Act.; Ninth Circuit initially ruled the President acted in bad faith and awarded fees to Lear Siegler.; En banc rehearing later reversed the prevailing‑party finding.

Date
Unknown
Source
House Oversight
Reference
kaggle-ho-012394
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

1988 Ninth Circuit case cites President's refusal to enforce Competition-in Contracting Act The passage references a historical court decision involving a presidential refusal to enforce a statute, but it provides no specific modern actors, transactions, or actionable leads. The information is already part of public case law and offers little investigative value. Key insights: President at the time refused to comply with provisions of the Competition-in Contracting Act.; Ninth Circuit initially ruled the President acted in bad faith and awarded fees to Lear Siegler.; En banc rehearing later reversed the prevailing‑party finding.

Tags

kagglehouse-oversightcourt-caseexecutive-authoritycontracting-lawhistorical-precedent

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
6) Lear Siegler, Inc., Energy Products Division v. Lehman, 842 F.2d 1102 (9th Cir. 1988), withdrawn in part 893 F.2d 205 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc): The President refused to comply with provisions of the Competition.in Contracting Act that he viewed as unconstitutional and thereby allowed for judicial resolution of the issue. The Ninth Circuit rejected the President's arguments about the constitutionality of the provisions. The court further determined that Lear Siegler was a prevailing party and was entitled to attorneys' fees, because the executive branch acted in bad faith in refusing to execute the contested provisions. In this regard, the court stated that the President's action was “utterly at odds with the texture and plain language of the Constitution," because a statute is part of the law of the land that the President is obligated to execute. Id. at 1121, 1124. On rehearing en banc, the court ruled that Lear Siegler was not a prevailing party and withdrew the sections of the opinion quoted above.

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.