Nonacquiescence

Template:Short description In law, nonacquiescence is the intentional failure by one branch of the government to comply with the decision of another to some degree. It tends to arise only in governments that feature a strong separation of powers, such as in the United States, and is much rarer in governments where such powers are partly or wholly fused. Nonacquiescence may lead to a constitutional crisis, given certain critical situations and decisions.

History

The issue of nonacquiescence first came to national prominence at the beginning of the American Civil War, in the famous case of Ex parte Merryman (1861). Merryman involved the executive branch's refusal to comply with a U.S. circuit court decision that President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was invalid.<ref name="Paulsen">Template:Cite journal</ref>

Contemporary use

In the United States, federal agencies might practice nonacquiescence by refusing to accept the validity of unfavorable court decisions as binding precedent.<ref>Gregory Sisk, Litigation with the Federal Government (Philadelphia: American Law Institute, 2006), 418–425.</ref><ref>Robert J. Hume, How Courts Impact Federal Administrative Behavior (New York: Routledge, 2009), 92–106.</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Exceptionally, the Social Security Administration<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> and the Internal Revenue Service openly declare such conduct.<ref>The SSA publishes Acquiescence Rulings and the IRS publishes Actions on Decisions, in which they state whether they will regard a particular court decision as precedent or not.</ref>

The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses the term nonacquiescence in its actions on decision to indicate that the IRS disagrees with a court ruling and will not follow its precedent nationwide.<ref name="irs36">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> In some cases of nonacquiescence, the IRS may follow the decision's precedent within the jurisdiction of the case in question, but not apply it in other jurisdictions.<ref name="irs36" />

Executive nonacquiescence has been heavily criticized by the federal courts,<ref>See, e.g., Hutchison v. Chater, 99 F.3d 286, 287–88 (8th Cir. 1996); Johnson v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 969 F.2d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 1992); 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).</ref> as well as the American Bar Association.<ref>Rhonda McMillion, "A Little Compliance Can't Hurt", ABA Journal, August 1997, 96.</ref>

Notes

<references/>

See also

• Acquiescence, an unrelated legal term