Nonacquiescence

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.

Contemporary use

In the United States, federal agencies might practice nonacquiescence by refusing to accept the validity of unfavorable court decisions as binding precedent.

Both the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service have done so in response to certain court decisions.

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. 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.

Executive nonacquiescence has been heavily criticized by the federal courts, as well as the American Bar Association.

Notes

References

1. (October 1993). "The Merryman Power and the Dilemma of Autonomous Executive Branch Interpretation". 15.
2. [[Gregory Sisk]], ''Litigation with the Federal Government'' (Philadelphia: American Law Institute, 2006), 418–425.
3. Robert J. Hume, ''How Courts Impact Federal Administrative Behavior'' (New York: Routledge, 2009), 92–106.
4. (2004). "Judicial Review and Bureaucratic Impact". Cambridge University Press.
5. McMillion, Rhonda. (August 1997). "A little compliance can't hurt". American Bar Association.
6. The SSA publishes [http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/ Acquiescence Rulings] and the IRS publishes [https://www.irs.gov/actions-on-decisions Actions on Decisions], in which they state whether they will regard a particular court decision as precedent or not.
7. "Internal Revenue Manual, 36.3.1.4". Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Dept of Treasury.
8. 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).