Henry S. Reuss v. John J. Balles

beyond the au- clearly Commission’s for was by the Commission the rule authorized prohibition of thority. within the perishables, 20(11).

Section respectfully I dissent. then, sum, language Section enactment, for its 20(11), the reasons own inter- law, case Commission’s exemplified in provision pretation indicate that perishables, all rule on 20(11) poses bar Carriers’ Section extraordinary value rule. Justification REUSS, Appellant, Henry striking down action in S. the Commission’s else- rule must be found longstanding proscriptions of Section where than al. et J. BALLES John 20(11). No. 77-1012. OF III. THE REASONABLENESS Appeals, United States Court VALUE RULE EXTRAORDINARY Circuit. District of Columbia evaluating the standard for proper carrier-imposed condition

validity of a Argued 1977. Dec. extraordinary value acceptance, such as the July Decided ” issue, is the “reasonableness rule here at 14, 1978. Rehearing Aug. Denied test valid- This was the condition. law,51and this standard ity common Certiorari Denied Nov. 216(b) of the in Section preserved been See 99 S.Ct. 598.

Act.52 particular

It well extra- be unreasonably impinges value rule ordinary public by its rights shipping generic terms ambiguous use of and elastic may be themselves to abuse. It which lend identify expect shippers unreasonable furniture”, “heirlooms”, even “antique or or Perhaps art”. somewhat “works of vague opportuni- do give terms carriers loss

ty to bad assertions after a make faith filed. If damage claim has been now contained in the specific list items rule includes extraordinary value Carriers’ any particular the Commission item which Judge, dissent- Skelly Wright, J. Chief unreasonable, cer- deems Commission opinion. ed filed tainly require particular item could But the Commission corrected deleted. approach.

has not followed this reasonable rule Acting belief that the mistaken 20(11), was in violative of Section principle rule in the Commission has struck down the toto, implicitly proscribed all such rules how drawn. This action tightly matter “just 316(b) expressly Lecocq, (8th g., authorizes E. F. 723 Cir. Platt v. 1907). regulations.” and reasonable WRIGHT, Judge,

Before Chief and WILKEY, Judges. TAMM and Circuit TAMM, Opinion for the court filed Judge. Circuit opinion J. Dissenting filed SKELLY WRIGHT, Judge. Chief TAMM, Judge: Circuit Reuss, Appellant Henry S. a United Wisconsin, States Congressman from com- menced this action the United States Columbia, District Court for the District seeking declaratory injunctive and relief from the allegedly compo- unconstitutional sition Open of the Federal Market Commit- tee, component integral Federal System. (Par- Reserve The district ker, J.) complaint, finding dismissed the sue, lacked both capacity congressman and as an owner of certain marketable bonds. Reuss Bailes, (D.D.C.1976). 73 F.R.D. 90 We affirm.

I

The System Federal Reserve was created by Congress in 1913 as this central nation’s bank. Unlike similar institutions other countries, entity, not a single but rath- er a composite public of several both parts, private, organized regional and on a basis governmental with a supervisory central authority. System of a The consists seven- Governors, member region- Board twelve Banks, al Federal Reserve the Federal (FOMC), Market Committee Federal Council, Advisory approximately owned, privately commercial banks.1 The key to of the System success is harmonious interaction between and among com- Crews, II, Grasty Washington, C., ponent D. parts.

appellant. The function of the Sys- Federal Reserve Kimmel, Atty., Dept. Justice,

Michael tem in policy the conduct of monetary is to C., Washington, D. with whom Barbara Al assist in achieving goals national economic Babcock, Gen., len Atty. Asst. through Leonard availability its influence on the Schaitman, Justice, Atty., Dept. reserves, credit, Earl cost of bank bank and mon- Silbert, J. C., U. Atty., Washington, ey. S. D. primary em- three instruments brief, were on appellee. ployed by System in formulation Appendix (J.A.)

1. See 12 Joint §§ at firms, individuals, accept- corporations, monetary policy and execution of 2) regula- 1) Credit open operations; are: market ances of Federal Intermediate borrowings from tion of member bank agricultural credit Banks and national Banks; 3) establish- Federal Reserve corporations . require- member bank reserve ment of The enable the foregoing provisions flexible, perhaps The most and ments. Banks, waiting Federal Reserve monetary policy of these important, most applications their member banks open is market instrument.2 tools rediscounts, adjust to for loans Re- inception of the Federal Since by purchasing credit situation the twelve Federal Reserve System, serve open the class selling and in the market statutorily empowered to have been Banks permitted to they are of securities that of variety in a wide financial participate in. The “to establish from power deal open in the market.3 In one transactions time, and subject to review deter- time functioning cases to discuss the the earliest Board, Federal Reserve mination of the Reserve, Judge Augustus N. the Federal charged rates discount open opera- market Hand summarized Bank,” appears in the Federal Reserve tions follows: open pow- act . . . with the market may] pur- Federal Reserve Banks [The ers. The two are correlative and open in the market at home chase and sell enable the Federal Reserve Banks to transfers and bankers’ or abroad cable make their rediscount rates effective. exchange of the acceptances and bills of The sale not lessen of securities does eligible redis- and kinds maturities available, but, by total amount of credit They may gold coin and count. deal to the Federal Re- necessitating payment abroad; sell, by and bullion at home and Banks, available credit serve increases abroad, and notes of home and bonds hands, “with a view of accommodat- bills, notes, reve- and business,” provided ing commerce and bonds, maturity warrants with nue and act. exceeding of not purchase from date of state, Bank, 34 months, county, Reserve F.2d Raichle Federal six issued subdivision, district, (2d 1929). or munici- political 913-14 Cir. States in the United

pality decision, in years the Raichle Four after banks, member They may purchase from growing importance of recognition of the sell, exchange arising out of bills operations element of open market as an transactions, may “estab- commercial monetary policy, Congress created national time, subject review lish from time The function of the FOMC FOMC.4 by the Federal Re- and determination policy was to initiate recommendations to be Board, of discount serve rates Board of for the conduct Governors Bank for charged by Reserve the Federal open operations, and the Federal market which shall be fixed paper, each class of time, were, first for the Reserve Banks accommodating view commerce with a open transacting in the prohibited from They may establish and business.” except accordance with Board market Reserve accounts other Federal left regulations. Each Reserve Bank open Banks . . . [and] however, participate in free, to decline foreign agencies in accounts establish Board. operations approved purpose purchasing, for the countries permissive of this initial The nature exchange. bills of collecting selling, ineffectual, and, in to be open proved structure They may purchase and sell banks, Congress elevated role market, or to domestic either from 348a, Plaintiff-Appel- 3. See U.S.C. §§ for the 2. See J.A. Brief lant at 18 & n. 23. Banking § 48 Stat. Act of ch. 21, 1976, appellant On June position.5 brought to its dominant 263(b) language, unequivocal court, seeking § U.S.C. the district a declar- action in (1976) states: atory judgment 263(a) engage Federal bank shall

No Reserve unconstitutional because the five Reserve open-market opera- decline to engage ap- Bank members of the are not 348a and 353 to 359 tions sections pointed pursuant Appointments title in accordance with the except reasoned, Clause the Constitution.7 He regulations adopted by direction of and since these are individuals shall the Committee. Committee “exercising authority significant pursuant consider, adopt, and transmit the sev- States,” Buckley to the laws of the United banks, regulations eral Federal Reserve Valeo, 612, 685, relating open-market transactions (1976)(per L.Ed.2d of such banks. thus “Officers of the United who States” 1935, Also since has been com- appointed are required by to be the Presi- posed seven members Board of subject dent confirmation. He Senate Governors, by who are the Presi- sought also injunction prohibiting dent with the advice and consent serving Reserve from Bank members Senate, representatives and five the Fed- FOMC, prohibiting the Federal Reserve Banks, annually eral by Reserve elected the Banks complying with FOMC di- boards directors of the Banks. rectives and regulations considered or 263(a) Initially, were no § there adopted while any Reserve Bank member qualifications restrictive appoint- for the serving was on the FOMC.8 Defendants to members, but, ment of these five latter in the action Bank included five Reserve 1942, Congress they mandated that be ei- FOMC, members of the alter- and their presidents ther first presidents vice of nates, and the twelve Federal Reserve Banks,6 the Federal Reserve individuals Banks. who approval are selected with the Appellant averred that he had Thus, Board of Governors. the FOMC now capacities. to sue in two legislator,9 As a he of seven consists members who hold their power claimed that the on by conferred him by presidential appoint- offices virtue of I, 2, article section Senate, Constitution to ments confirmed and five impeachment proceedings against initiate subject members who hold their offices ulti- mately only approval civil officers of of the Board of the United is dimin- States Governors. ished because the Bank Reserve members of Banking 1935, 614, 205, three-judge pursuant Act of ch. 49 Stat. made to § convene a court to 28 U.S.C. § 2282 was which still in force at time action was filed. J.A. at 1942, July 7, 488, 1, 6. Act of ch. 56 Stat. 647. § 94-381, 2, see Pub.L. No. 90 Stat. 1119 12, (Aug. 1976). Judge correctly Parker ruled II, 2, states, perti- 7. Article section clause single judge may that “a first determine wheth- part: nent jurisdiction er the to hear the case nominate, . [The . shall President] requesting three-judge before court. Gonza- and with the Advice and Consent of Union, Employees lez v. Automatic Credit Senate, Ambassadors, appoint shall other 95 S.Ct. public Consuls, Judges Ministers and Bailes, (1974).” (D.D. Reuss v. Court, F.R.D. and all other Officers of the C.1976); parte Poresky, see Ex Appointments whose are not 31-32, provided for, (1933); Bryan 78 L.Ed. 152 herein otherwise and which Comm., shall established but Federal Mkt. Law: the Con- gress may by Appointment (D.Mont.1964). Law vest Officers, proper, such inferior as think alone, Law, in the President in the Courts of Congressman represents Reuss Wisconsin’s Departments. or in the Heads of congressional fifth district. He serves Banking, Chairman the Committee on Fi- sought J.A. at 14. Because to en- nance and Urban Affairs. join being enforcement aof federal statute as repugnant Constitution, application to 96-97; infra, id. note reasons. See selected, “juris- cal FOMC, currently Finally, his text. accompanying impeachment dictionally immune as “re- dismissed impeachment claim was improper he also claimed process;” insufficient,” mote, id. conjectural responsibilities delegation of un- powers, appeal of his ensued. usurpation 96. This resulted Constitution, I, 8, of section article der II money, the value of regulate coin and commerce, money and to borrow regulate “focuses As the credit of the United States.11 seeking get complaint be party marketable bonds” val- of “certain owner he not on the issues fore a court and federal $20,000, maintained that excess he ued in adjudicated.” Flast v. Co wishes to might result in taken the FOMC actions hen, without due being property deprived (1968). Although appellant’s L.Ed.2d of the law.12 process legislator introduces somewhat status as a bar, Government,13 into case Judge unique considerations motion On are no of we must bear mind lack Parker dismissed analyz employed in special standards to be subject matter. He over the jurisdiction Harring ing standing questions. to demon- failed found that Bush, ton v. congressman standing either strate Thus, how 190, (1977). no matter F.2d 204 regard to the latter ca- With bondholder. posi reasons, appellant’s we be toward stated, among inclined he other pacity, merits, satisfy must we first allege causal con- tion on the any to appellant “failed ‘alleged per he a “has such allegedly improper se- ourselves between the nection in the of the controver sonal stake outcome representatives Bank lection of the Reserve as invocation of federal- sy’ to warrant his possible impact on any . justify exercise jurisdiction . . court and to Thus . it is value of securities. on his behalf.” powers remedial alleged injury would be court’s not clear that 490, 498-99, Seldin, 95 Reuss Warth v. by a favorable decision.” redressed 2205, (1975) 2197, 343 45 L.Ed.2d Bailes, Appellant’s at ar- S.Ct. 73 F.R.D. 98. v. Carr, 82 v. legisla- (quoting Baker concerning his diminished gument 691, (1962)).14 for identi- 7 L.Ed.2d 663 in rejected, was tive Ap- Plaintiff-Appellant at 12. 13. at 26. Brief for Id. 10. pellant’s ground his amend- to this in reference increasing congressmen complaint precise. See number of ed was somewhat less An courts, 12; Plaintiff-Appellant repairing in- at to the either for the are J.A. at Brief senators after, of, resorting proc- However, impeachment political to the theo- 12 n.4. since the stead ess, in, policies. fully upon by, challenge developed ry ruled executive actions and to was Carter, court, argued See, U.S.App.D.C. g., on 189 and briefed and Edwards v. the district e. cases, having properly 1, (1978). be- appeal, it as been we will treat Such 580 F.2d 1055 Seldin, political generally over- presented. v. 422 their almost inevitable See Warth cause of very 490, 501-02, 2197, tones, present the with some diffi- courts U.S. 95 questions. (1975). jurisdictional cult principal amended One reason that in discussion in American indicated our As theory, original complaint Vance, U.S.App.D.C. a Congress was to advance 188 Jewish v. theory, impeachment that his (1978), concerning related ability interre F.2d 939 575 process “participate po standing selec- lationship and the between sue that, doctrine, States . question tion of officers of the United we believe litical general, through negotiation representatives standing inquiry such cases U.S.App. J.A. at 12. The Senate” had been diminished. first. these should resolved 188 against appellant 62-63, ruled on this district court theory, 575 at If there is D.C. at F.2d 943-944. Bailes, standing, 73 at and he Reuss v. F.R.D. the case of lack of determination appeal. ground. See it in this Brief did be dismissed on that should Plaintiff-Appellant However, at 1. these cases are mindful present precisely those considerations often at 11. J.A. may require resolution resort Harrington political doctrine. at 12-13. 466 determination, mind, analy- we turn to an making this we must erations now allegations sis of bases

“accept as true all material each of asserted standing. complaint, and must construe the com- plaint complaining party.” favor Legislator. Standing A. Seldin, Warth 422 at 95 S.Ct. at Thus, for purposes reviewing Although it certainly had the the complaint, district court’s dismissal of expansive, opportunity be more we shall the five Federal Re- assume degree high has exercised caution representatives serving serve Bank legislator in delimiting scope stand illegally, in that should Kennedy Sampson, case, ing: one have been the President with (1974), U.S.App.D.C. 511 F.2d the advice and consent of the Senate. The held legislator have we that a remains, however, question” “critical apparent to sue.15 This parsimony derives has result- “whether assumed illegality preconceived not from concern notions ed any judicially cognizable injury” cases, ing such but rather from an aware Metcalf v. National Petroleum appellant. above, ness noted re Council, U.S.App.D.C. F.2d special ceives no consideration the stand With ing inquiry. consid- Bush, U.S.App.D.C. 45, Phillips, (D.D.C.), F.Supp. F.2d liams v. Bryan denied, stay U.S.App.D.C. 194 n.6 Comm., v. Federal Mkt. 482 F.2d 669 Note, 882; F.Supp. Congression- at were a number senators found to Courts, al Access to the Federal 90 Harv.L.Rev. appointment (1977). Thus, if the court be- agency acting circumventing director as plaintiff sue, lieves the but has question, does have participate right in the confirmation of presented nonjusticiable political federal officers. This court standing 82, not rule on did it should dismiss the determination, at ground. Any standing, that latter therefore, discussion 671, which, significant F.2d to a dictum, pure would be rendered see degree, upon now-questionable based Bush, Harrington infra, and, note 15 upon” Mitchell “bear standard. 360 overriding because our concern is to Simon, 1366. In Pressler v. avoid constitutional determinations unless es- (D.D.C.1976) court) (three-judge (per curiam), case, disposition sential to the see Har- Blumenthal, affd sub v. mem. nom. Pressler 98 Brucker, mon v. L.Ed.2d 776 (1958) (per the court (1978), congressman prevented by applica a certainly eliminating, should consider limit- voting tion of federal statutes on the as ancillary ing, standing discussions. salaries, congressional legisla certainment of a Finally, plaintiff court if the believes the duty tive Clause, mandated the Ascertainment standing presented political has not a standing held was to have to question, may, nonetheless, sue be it because of the impaired; case, had cause his vote been the district unusual circumstances of the dismiss for court, however, against plaintiff equity. Congress want of ruled the American Jewish on J., (McGowan, concurring separately); Rehnquist, concurring Vance the Justice merits. in Note, Congressional affirmance, to Access thought Federal the portant Court’s it im Courts, supra, at 1652-54. point to out such affirmance does not Laird, U.S.App.D.C. 15. In Mitchell necessarily agreement reflect this Court’s 488 F.2d 611 where the with the conclusion political question reached the District dismissed because a was that presented, indicated, only, Court on the we merits of the Ascertainment in dictum congressmen question standing question. in had Clause that The to District Court decided declaratory judgment sought sue appellant standing litigate because did have to upon” would to funds, “bear their constitutional duties this issue virtue of the fact that he was a officials, impeach appropriate executive to Congress, Member of but decided issue legislation. subsequent and to formulate against “unexplicat- him merits. Our U.S.App.D.C. 614; Id. 159 488 F.2d at opinion ed affirmance” without could rest as supra. Bush, Harrington see note 14 But see readily appellant our conclusion 207-09; Congressional 553 F.2d at Access to standing litigate lacked the merits of the Courts, supra the Federal note at 1638 & agreement could on with the n.43. District Court’s resolution of merits of This court has been involved a limited question. degree legislators in other two cases in which added). (emphasis Id. were found sue. In Wil- request three-judge for a court. light of the Kennedy, a States senator was Instead, should have assumed that standing to sue to held to have group exercising private a attempted is legality pocket of an veto FOMC voted; powers, and then delegated impair- improperly which he had a bill for injured an fact interest whether that of his vote was found asked efficacy ment of the view, it not. In our does appellant. in fact. to demonstrate sufficient however, case, we stressed Even in that protected by sought to be The interest the vindication of the effectiveness is his in theory role appellant most “essential” his vote was the senator’s regulation of the formulation interest, was asserted “in and that it theory, monetary The defect in policy. specif- particular dispute about context of declare, however, that even if were is legislation.” ic effect, all members of in Miller, 511 F.2d at see Coleman appointees, same presidential to be 83 L.Ed. 1385 currently delegated to the responsibilities theories Neither delegated. remain so FOMC would presents the instant a situation case monetary role vis-a-vis appellant’s fact that derogated, will be where vote such way be enhanced policy would analogous to war- sufficiently a situation legislative indicates that his a declaration sue. rant a determination including relevant votes either powers, floor, currently are not committee or Commerce, Borrowing Currency, is, adversely any respect; affected Powers. would be therefore, injury in fact that is theory The essence of this Thus, we decision. redressed a favorable members, all its appointment of presidential district court’s deter- with the accord essentially private group for, reasoning of, all its mination but not specified legislative functions which the theory. standing under this lack of this is delegated. If improperly have been Seldin, 422 U.S. at Warth v. true, reasons, then actions taken appellant 2197.19 belonging usurp powers still by the FOMC Power. Impeachment Congress, injuring thus body.16 of that member appellant maintains theory, Under this the Reserve notes,17 of selection of correctly the district method As was, of the FOMC renders theory representatives Bank analysis court’s of this pow- “jurisdictionally immune” By indicating at them somewhat misconceived. House of in the impeachment there is no er of vested analysis the of that outset its fact, reasons, di- he Representatives. the This delegation because improper impeachment power court minishes his to initiate completely group,18 not a the private I, by section effect, provided article was, rendering proceedings decision on the 2, of the merits, jurisdiction in Constitution. exceeding thus its delegated Plaintiff-Appellant at Act unconstitutional because 26-34. 16. Brief for the functions, establishing including legislative at 29-30. Id. codes, groups. completely private of these existing company or demonstrate A could Bailes, After 73 F.R.D. 96-97. Reuss by industry in fact caused imminent conclusion, however, unnecessary reaching this private groups these codes formulated acceptable for its rationale court did cite an composi- standing might finding standing. at 97. of no groups civil See of in a suit. tion n.10, Valeo, U.S. 11-12 & Poultry Corp. v. United 19. Schechter (1976) curiam). (per It does not 46 L.Ed.2d 79 L.Ed. 1570 follow, however, legislator, genuinely that a degree by appellant, upon significant ato relied groups’ composition but about concerned compel opposite result. In that does not case, an any way, adversely could main- not affected company’s the Court reversed criminal tain a similar cause of action. industry code conviction for violation Recovery holding Industrial the National must, course, against deny limitations.” Id. We appel- The district court decided theory, primarily on this because there lant request. this specific allegations wrongdo- were “no rejection appellant’s legislator Our representatives ing” Reserve Bank with- standing does not leave him theories grounds would be for their impeach- un- any remedy allegedly out means to Bailes, Reuss v. 73 F.R.D. ment. at 96. constitutional of the FOMC. express opinion we While on whether may, past He done in as he has allegations wrongdoing such would form requiring ultimate success introduce a bill basis, basis, or impairment presidential ap- all to be FOMC members impeach- a House member’s share of the pointees. Sampson, Public Citizen v. power,20 ment we allega- do hold (D.D.C.1974), aff’d tions has advanced this case are mem., 515 F.2d to confer upon insufficient based (1975). circumstance, certainly This while impeachment theory. claim, not fatal to his does illus- reasoning Central to our for this holding, lies, controversy trate that his actual was in rejection as it our of the preceding lie, may legislators; sup- with his fellow theory, is that appellant, “to have standing, posed impairment legislative of his func- have a controversy must stake in the due, any part, tions is to the actions or issue, e., i. he perceptibly himself must win omissions of the named defendants. See depending or lose outcome.” Har- Kentucky Rights Welfare Simon Eastern Bush, rington 209. Even if Organization, 426 U.S. 96 S.Ct. declare, effect, were we that the Re- 41— (1976). L.Ed.2d representatives serve Bank presi- had to be dentially appointed, interest

relative to the impeachment process pri-— B. Standing as a Bondholder. marily the power impeachment to initiate As a holder of certain marketable proceedings be changed —would bonds, appellant maintains he has slightest from present position, its since to sue because actions taken is nothing that he suggest cannot regula pursuant pervasive to its now introduce of impeachment.21 a bill tory authority might being result in his fact This reveals that appellant’s complaint deprived process without due is, property for a declaratory judgment in actuality, nothing request particular, more than for an the law. In he “a adviso- asserts that ry opinion actions, in clear violation of Article III because of effect on interest argument, Judge Wright ques- Stop War, 208, 220-21, 20. At oral Chief appellant, litigant, 2925, 2932, parte tioned whether had to Ex wrongdoing bringing Levitt, await actual before 82 L.Ed. theory, action since the threat of impeachment acts as a deterrent to misconduct Although civil officers of the United States. impeach- If he were introduce a bill agree with thrust contention— ment, of whether civil de facto Reserve Bank members act less “jurisdictional- officers of the United States are responsibly than would if declared to be ly impeachment process” immune to the would subject impeachment, see THE FEDERAL- sharply presented. We is believe that there IST, (A. Hamilton) No. 77 do not see how —we particular question arising in this benefit first appellant’s standing argument, benefits be- Congress, in the the branch entrusted the very generalized inju- of cause the nature anof responsibility Constitution of with for exercise ry arising sharing from this While fact. impeachment opin- power. the We venture injury large persons with a of number does not Representatives, ion on whether the House of Seldin, standing, vitiate one’s see Warth v. Senate, reject juris- or the would such a bill on U.S. at Sierra Club v. Mor- grounds, dictional or on what course a ton, 727, 734-35, might rejection take if confronted with such a (1972), sharing every L.Ed.2d 636 it with citizen ground standing. as a does, the United “because States of the nec- essarily injury abstract nature all citi- J.A. at 46-47. Schlesinger share.” zens Reservists Comm. redressability Further, is problem the inflation, could reduce the rate of rates and ways.23 theory in several value of his bonds under this the as troublesome at least standing theo- the it was under complaint’s ef- of the amended spite to believe that ries. There is reason perceived injury to describe fort resulting presiden- con- ultimately than those speculative terms declaration less complaint, we are original in the tained would tial of the entire appointment allegations still are the view that the any manner what- appellant benefit the standing. Appellant’s sufficient to confer ever, injury assuming that concrete even allegations specific summation of his most be estab- could appellees caused particular support for this belief: provides of decisions would type The same lished. take Defendants “[A]ny action which the FOMC,contributing to both be made property interest injury cause some rates, in interest and decreases increases possessed which the Plaintiff inflation, and other financial the rate of therefore, that appears, It bondholder.”24 indicators. injury to or imminent there is no degree appellant point can which overcome Finally, even if could power our specificity, beyond it is obstacles, he would be faced with the conjectural. injuries merely address generalized griev very his is a fact that allege ance, common, degree, more if could to some Even one held in difficulty injury, he would have concrete public. virtually all members of the to a was caused establishing that of Claims Recently, example, Court actions degree by challenged sufficient judi effect of inflation denominated the appellees. pursu- The actions taken being indirect and non cial both salaries are but of the FOMC ant decisions discriminatory. Atkins part, of the forces important albeit an (per (Ct.Cl.1977) hold- of one’s financial determine the value denied, 434 rt. ce Therefore, even if one considers ings. (1978). The somewhat 54 L.Ed.2d component important the most FOMC be bonds do not long-term features of unusual System, it does not the Federal Reserve from distinguish them sufficiently actions of its necessarily follow that individual’s fi forms that an many other Banks can be and the Reserve members and, assume, since all holdings can nancial per- seeking to counter singled out in suits personal wealth are affected economy. in the nation’s forms declines ceived bondholder Open can fendants exercise erty of such duce bonds, est est by diminishing duce upon can reduce the lar, thereby diminishing money Appellant’s (a) By voting (b) By voting (c) By voting ability rates, payment rates, substantially Market the market value of following By serving as members of the Federal thereby reducing property reinvestment of funds derived returns the defendant to borrow the defendant plaintiffs, credit, amended of his bonds at Committee, purchasing power of the dol- ways: to decrease to increase without due governmental power increase the theory available the defendant plaintiff’s money. thereby depriving adversely the value individuals individuals as follows: the individual prevailing prevailing maturity, to the net worth process future availability affect detailed the individuals plaintiffs so-called plaintiff income. can re- can re- of law which there- prop- inter- inter- him de- 24. Brief phasis Id. at tiffs bonds. their value. both, money nomic constant dollars or real make can may deprive extent defendant suance eral ticipation due (d) By voting 12-13. process of law. bring added). Sjc thereby diminishing or activity payment for the or value of By carrying out the orders of obligors there has been about banks Market Committee credit, ^[*] the defendant sufficient Plaintiff-Appellant to decrease of interest or plaintiff carry on more than ifc the defendant unconstitutional plaintiff’s ^[*] terms of the reduction impair operations $10,000 individuals, property availability # extinguishing in whose is- principal individuals at 34 bonds sfc in eco- ability which plain- Fed- (em- par- 470 degree by including

some the type questions actions of “constitutional of sepa- here, challenge it is difficult to imagine how respect ration of agency apart set himself from other designated could adjudicate rights.” their seeking toway protect citizens some n.10, at 12 96 at 631. S.Ct. holdings. Schlesinger value See v. us, appellant In the case before has not War, to Stop Reservists Committee 418 requirement. satisfied this threshold Un- 208, 220-21, 2925, 94 41 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Buckley, plaintiffs like and the cases (1974); Bryan 706 v. Federal Market therein,26 appellant cited has not demon- Committee, 877, 235 881-82 personal strated a stake so sufficient that hold, therefore, (D.Mont.1964). We that ap- he would benefit from a favorable decision pellant lacks standing sue his bond- Buckley, example, merits. In holder theory. plaintiffs persuaded they the Court that directly would benefit from a decision nulli- Ill alia, fying, inter those sections of the Fed- concluding, Before we wish to address eral Election Campaign Act that established appellant’s argument reporting requirements and disclosure Court’s standing determination of in Buck- campaign expenditures limited ley Valeo, 612, v. 424 U.S. 96 S.Ct. 46 12-84, contributions. id. at 96 S.Ct. (1976) (per strongly L.Ed.2d turn, 612. In they challenged the method supports his position agree in this case. We appointment FEC, of members of the strong similarity there is a between seeking injunction FEC, prohibiting Buckley composition constituted, properly enforcing until (FEC) the Federal Election Commission provisions these and the other Act. appellant’s challenge prohibition, arguably, This at least ofwas FOMC, but we also believe there are benefit to those plaintiffs who intended to crucial differences between the two situa- run for office in the 1976 election and tions.25 rights would, whose campaign ato its rather significant degree, adjudicated brief discussion in be Buckley, the Court took care to 109-43, stress twice id. FEC. See An S.Ct. 612. the requirement parties injunction have to dem- prohibiting the Reserve Bank onstrate a “personal sufficient stake” participating members from in FOMCdelib- outcome of a controversy they before will erations ap- and decisions until properly granted be access pointed, however, to a federal court’s reme- would be of similar n.10, dial powers. Id. at 12 & appellant. S.Ct. benefit to the place, the first Only after are found to have “suffi- adjudicate rights FOMC does not cient moreover, concrete at stake” can the any respect; above, interests as indicated parties proceed challenges, to raise other neither legislative powers nor value Preliminarily, explicit- (footnote omitted). statute note S.Ct. at 631 But see id. at ly providing judicial n.11, question review of constitutional & answer 612. Al S.Ct. challenges Buckley. though See Buck- precise the Court was not more in iden ley Valeo, n.4, 11-12, tifying plaintiffs v. 424 U.S. at 8-9 & which which 612; 437h(a) (1976). issues, S.Ct. Of it did make its determination course, explained, as the upon complaint Court such review based that details im either provided permitted could to the extent good mediate or imminent with a deal 11-12, article III. U.S. at particularity more than the us before Ky. Rights Org., see Simon v. Eastern Welfare Complaint Compare in this case. for Declara n.22, 426 U.S. & S.Ct. tory Injunctive 28-29, 33, 3-10, & Relief at (1976). L.Ed.2d 450 Valeo, Buckley with J.A. at 11-13. basis, establishing analytical After Palmore 411 U.S. proceeded Court to conclude that “at least (1973); L.Ed.2d 342 Co. Glidden appellants ‘per- some of the have a sufficient Zdanok, sonal stake’ in a determination the constitu- Miller, L.Ed.2d 671 Coleman v. validity challenged provi- tional of each of the 59 83 L.Ed. 1385 Valeo, sions.” 424 U.S. at enhanced, secured, neither of these tion. In cases was be his bonds would impropriety in the actual question of requested. by the relief otherwise affected judge in litigation by the of the conduct Indeed, continue to itself would the FOMC made any argument question. Nor was group until the operate as a seven-member necessarily receive appellant would made, that the and there is appointments were new positive dis- treatment or a more favorable inference, speculative nothing, short of relitigated it be- position of his case were would be interests indicate that pur- unquestionably appointed judges fore any degree by development. affected to showing was III. No such suant to Article reasons, therefore, we believe the For these appel- it was sufficient required; Buckley distinguishable is from case at bar adjudi- rights had been alleged lant that his decisions.27 supporting and its unconstitutionally composed cated tribunal. IV decisions, Relying on these conclusion, we affirm the district Buckley appel- v. Valeo that Court held standing to appellant hold that lacks and President, a lants, candidate for a candidate sue, as a bondhold- and both as Senate, a reelection to the United States for his capacity has he met er. In neither contributor, political various potential allege demonstrat- responsibility “to facts associations, challenge the standing to to invoke proper party is ing that he appoint- method of constitutionality of the dispute and the

judicial resolution Election Com- ing of the Federal members powers.” court’s remedial exercise of the cited Palmore Glid- mission. The Court 518, 95 Seldin, 422 S.Ct. at Warth v. U.S. at den, in Coleman as well as its decision Miller, 83 L.Ed. 59 S.Ct. 307 U.S. Affirmed. (1939), proposition concrete with sufficient “[pjarty litigants WRIGHT, Judge, dis- J. Chief SKELLY interests at stake senting: separation questions of raise constitutional Valeo, 424 U.S. my view agency desig- respect to an (1976), clearly 46 L.Ed.2d 659 424 U.S. adjudicate rights.” nated has appellant Reuss stand- establishes that While the Court at 681. S.Ct. challenge the consti- ing challenged adju- as a bondholder “the noted that in Glidden the Feder- tutionality composition place, whereas already taken dication had For this rea- impend- al Market Committee. is appellants’ case claim of in this ques- apart the difficult rulings son—even from and determinations ing future legislative Commission,” found that raised his claims the Court tions than judgment ripeness rather would reverse “this is a —I controversy Art. III.” lack of case or District Court. States, 411 In Palmore v. United case, appellant's (1973), Buckley, In this 36 L.Ed.2d agency whose Zdanok, members of 82 claim is that Glidden rights and interests Su- decisions affect 8 L.Ed.2d 671 consistent with appointed challenges to deci- have not been

preme Court addressed who, Appoint- upheld judges requirements constitutional reached or sions II, Buckley, asserted, Clause, 2. As in ments Art. were not and did interest in the a concrete not serve under Article of the Constitu- III (1976) (per course, n.24 suggest F.2d 579 & do not mean to Of remanded, totally vacated the FOMC immune warranto, Fed.R. challenge; quo the writ of 81(a)(2). facts example, might We hold Civ.P. as a direct attack available presented, has not established Third Class Mail Users device. See Associated Serv., challenge. make that States Postal is, itself, constitutionally composed body agency of the involved. decisions the case it is derived from fact injury to the requirement sufficient meet long-term exceeding $20,- holder of bonds permit and to the court to decide the merits value, appellant’s property 000 in interests challenge. of his constitutional by by will be affected the actions taken the today recognizes majority The the directly which prevailing influence similarity “strong Buckley between the and, thus, interest rates the of appel- value composition to of the Federal lant’s property.1 appellant’s proper- While appellant’s Election Commission and chal rights ty are “at thereby stake” of lenge to the FOMC.” decisions, establish, FOMC’s he cannot as U.S.App.D.C. at opinion, Majority out,2 majority points that the allegedly --, at F.2d 470. It attempts unconstitutional composition of the commit- Buckley, however, distinguish tee has resulted or will result in devaluation ground “[ujnlike plaintiffs that in Buck he property would be materi- therein, ley appellant and the cases cited better ally off were the members of the has a so personal not demonstrated stake constitutionally appointed. Committee But sufficient that he would benefit from a required Buckley: is not appel- under Id., on favorable decision the merits.” in Buckley required lants were nowhere at--, U.S.App.D.C. 584 F.2d at establish that the method of appointing earlier, Yet as noted direct, members any FEC had ad- plaintiffs way in no demonstrated them, impact upon verse or that different particular composition of the FEC —as dis and more favorable decisions would be separate question reached tinct from the ex properly body. constituted case, Glidden, of a Buckley, body charged istence with Pal- enforcement more, rights responsibilities fact that an individual’s they Act which being are allegedly objected any determined them un- 3—caused direct questions by major Court, long-term 1. Two have been raised holder however, bonds. The District ity respect appellant’s appellant claim that he allowing to intro- evidence, a concrete interest in simply the decisions reached ap- duce this stated that the the FOMC. The first issue relates to the pellant’s effect “generalized contentions are concerns appellant’s on FOMC actions the value of grievances by many or public,” shared members holdings. majority points out that the “ac adopted by majority a view pursuant tions taken to decisions of majority Thus well. concludes important part, are but albeit an personal all forms wealth affect- “[s]ince forces that determine the value one’s finan degree by type ed to some challenge here, actions of the cial holdings.” Maj. op., U.S.App.D.C. at imagine it is difficult how --, Appellant 584 F.2d at 469. does not appellant apart could set himself from other suggest way omnipo that the FOMC is protect seeking way citizens some the value tent; recognizes he that FOMC decisions re holdings.” Maj. op., U.S.App. of their spond economy to various factors in the over at--, (emphasis F.2d D.C. at 469 add- which it does not have control. The fact re ed). precisely appellant Yet that what of- mains, however, as the District Court again, fered to do in the District Court. Here majority recognize, both that FOMC decisions oppor- should at least be afforded an prevailing do have a definite effect interest tunity to introduce evidence as to a factual rates, appellant’s and thus on the value of hold point majority which the views as critical be- ings. Maj. op., U.S.App.D.C. at-, against fore this court rules him because of the F.2d J.A. 161. And should there proof. absence such any question point, appellant remain as to this at--, op., U.S.App.D.C. Maj. opportu should at least have been afforded the nity prove the truth of what he asserted. A second and related issue is raised Judge suggest Tamm majority’s seems to Buck- grievance statement ley appellants’ common, concrete in those sec- degree, interest is “one held to some virtually Campaign public.” tions Federal Election Act Maj. op., all members of establishing reporting require- -, disclosure 584 F.2d at 469. limiting campaign expenditures ments and In the District Court offered to intro- provided appellants contributions turn” quali- duce “[i]n evidence to establish that is a challenging impact tative with a basis for the method difference between the of FOMC Maj. op., appointing currency decisions holder members the FEC. and on a benefit; certainly, is in- what rive such different or or that would receive event. properly speculation from a either pure more treatment volved is favorable Buckley is that Indeed, majority such body. point when The critical purported required distinc nor explicate its neither established forced benefit was tion, point than out that the merits of it can do no more court to reach in order for the FEC, prop prohibiting the until court order claim. appellants’ Act, constituted, enforcing the from erly view, dis- there is no valid my simply was of benefit those arguably, “at least be- the case to be drawn between tinction in to run for office plaintiffs who intended Valeo, and our deci- Buckley fore us rights in that and whose the 1976 election be controlled today should therefore sion would, significant degree, be campaign basis, dis- respectfully I Buckley. On this Id., FEC.” by the 189 U.S. adjudicated majority. of the from the decision sent (em -----, at 470 App.D.C. at 584 F.2d added). phasis I respect, find this distinc-

With all due with, begin To wholly unpersuasive. tion Court, holding standing, nowhere Buckley appellants had upon, any mentioned, let relied bene- alone injunction an fit secure from they would DATA RATE AND STANDARD until the Commis- against operations FEC INC., SERVICE, Appellant, Quite to the properly constituted. sion stay of its contrary, granted the Court it affected order insofar as POSTAL SERVICE UNITED STATES Congress so as “afford Commission al. et to reconstitute the Commis- opportunity No. 77-1848. adopt other valid enforce- sion law to interrupting en- ment mechanisms without Appeals, Court of United States provisions the Court sus- forcement of the Circuit. District Columbia tains, allowing the Commission Argued Feb. de in accord- interim to function facto provisions ance with the substantive July Decided Act.” Moreover, added). even were (emphasis from a be secured

there some benefit enforcing provisions delay short-term Court, it is not at upheld of the Act particular appellants in why all clear office, Buckley to run for who intended opponents, would de- opposed, say, to their at----, any properly harm or that a constituted direct 470. There body fa- however, more reach different decisions question, would the fact that is no sure, be interests. To because vorable raise one claim— individual requirements they objected reporting here, provisions Act— to the substantive other, provisions expenditure and contribution to raise afford him does not Act, appellants might Buckley here, ap- benefit separate to the method of claims — Buckley which would undermine relief pointing members. Commission provi- But such benefits are enforcement. appellants’ objections statute’s to the substantive challenges sub- to their to these Judge relevant Tamm were the Act cited sions of Act; provisions do not way stantive to the method related to their members; was, provide the unre- raise appointing I basis must FEC Commis- showing the members of the emphasize again, lated claim rath- the President sion should the unconstitutional Com- by Congress. itself, mission, appellants er than caused the

Case Details

Case Name: Henry S. Reuss v. John J. Balles

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Nov 27, 1978

Citation: 584 F.2d 461

Docket Number: 77-1012

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.