San Francisco Redevelopment Agency v. Nixon

329 F. Supp. 672
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedJuly 30, 1971
DocketC-71-1133, C-71-1135
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 329 F. Supp. 672 (San Francisco Redevelopment Agency v. Nixon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency v. Nixon, 329 F. Supp. 672 (N.D. Cal. 1971).

Opinion

OLIVER J. CARTER, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs in the instant actions seek mandamus from this Court directed to the President of the United States. They contend that the President is obligated under an appropriations bill (Pub.Law 91-609) passed by Congress and signed by him to allot the money appropriated to the various executive agencies involved. They contend that this is a merely ministerial duty and that mandamus by the United States District Court is an appropriate remedy.

The government contends that regardless of the merits of the case no United States Court can direct a mandate toward the person of the President. Accordingly they have moved the Court to quash the service of a summons directed to the President.

The Court concludes that the real issue is whether the President should be dismissed as a party.

Counsel for plaintiffs and the Court have been unable to find authority for the proposition that a United States District Court may compel the head of the Executive Branch of government to take any action whatsoever. No decided cases since Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) have even contemplated this question. It is clear, therefore, that a long standing policy, if not a positive rule, has avoided such an intragovernmental confrontation. The plaintiffs have failed to show this Court any good cause why this long standing forbearance should now be abrogated.

Accordingly, the motion to quash service and dismiss the President from these causes of action is granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Noriega Rodríguez v. Hernández Colón
135 P.R. Dec. 406 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1994)
Committee to Establish the Gold Standard v. United States
392 F. Supp. 504 (S.D. New York, 1975)
National Ass'n of Internal Revenue Employees v. Nixon
349 F. Supp. 18 (District of Columbia, 1972)
Reese v. Nixon
347 F. Supp. 314 (C.D. California, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
329 F. Supp. 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/san-francisco-redevelopment-agency-v-nixon-cand-1971.