LRM #IMS 302 - REVISED Statement of Administration Policy on HR12S2 Judici

      You will not be receiving a paper copy of this LRM.
Total Pages:


LRM ID: IMS302
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Washington, D.C. 20503-0001

Tuesday, April 21, 1998

LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM

TO:                       Legislative Liaison Officer - See Distribution below

FROM:           James J. Jukes (for) Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
OMB CONTACT:    Ingrid M. Schroeder
                                 PHONE: (202) 395-3883 FAX: (202) 395-3109
SUBJECT:        REVISED     Statement of Administration Policy on HR1252
Judicial Reform Act of 1997

DEADLINE:                 12:30   Tuesday, April 21, 1998

In accordance with OMB Circular A-19, OMB requests the views of your
agency on the.above subject before advising on its relationship to the
program of the President.  Please advise us if this item will affect
direct spending or receipts for purposes of the "Pay-As-You-Go" provisions
of Title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.


COMMENTS: Please note that the SAP contains a veto recommendation from the
Attorney General.
DISTRIBUTION LIST

AGENCIES:
11-Administrative Office of the u.S. Courts - Michael W. Blommer - (202)
273-1120
61-JUSTICE - Andrew Fois - (202) 514-2141
118-TREASURY - Richard S. Carro - (202) 622-0650
67-Merit Systems Protection Board - Susan Williams - (202) 653-6772
92-0ffice of Personnel Management - Harry Wolf - (202) 606-1424
76-National Economic Council - Sonyia Matthews - (202) 456-6630

EOP:
David J. Haun
Kenneth L. Schwartz
Michael Deich
Theodore Wartell
Steven D. Aitken
Robert G. Damus
Douglas D. McCormick
Lisa B. Fairhall
Ellen J. Balis
Kathleen M. Turco
Randolph M. Lyon
William P. Marshall
Paul J. weinstein Jr.
Elena Kagan
Peter G. Jacoby
Broderick Johnson
Charles M. Brain
Alice E. Shuffield
Kate P. Donovan
James C. Murr
LRM ID: IMS302 SUBJECT:    REVISED    Statement of Administration Policy on
HR1252 Judicial Reform Act of 1997


RESPONSE TO
LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL
MEMORANDUM

If your response to this request for views is short (e.g., concur/no
comment), we prefer that you respond bye-mail or by faxing us this
response sheet.  If the response is short and you prefer to call, please
call the branch-wide line shown below (NOT the analyst's line) to leave a
message with a legislative assistant.

You may also respond by:
         (1) calling the analyst/attorney's direct line (you will be
connected to voice mail if the analyst does not answer); or
         (2) sending us a memo or letter
Please include the LRM number shown above, and the subject shown below.


TO:            Ingrid M. Schroeder Phone:   395-3883   Fax:  395-3109
               Office of Management and Budget
               Branch-Wide Line (to reach legislative assistant): 395-3454

FROM:                                                    (Date)



                                                           (Name)

                                                           (Agency)

                                                           (Telephone)


The following is the response of our agency to your request for views on
the above-captioned subject:

                 Concur

       _______ No Objection

                 No Comment

                 See proposed edits on pages

       _______ Other:

                 FAX RETURN of _____ pages, attached to this response sheet

DRAFT -- NOT FOR RELEASE

April 21, 1998
(House Rules)

H.R. 1252 - Judicial Reform Act of 1998
(Hyde (R) Illinois and 8 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1252 and, if
presented to the President in its current form, the Attorney General would
recommend that the bill be vetoed because it:

 Purports to restrict the remedial powers of Article III Federal courts to
enforce constitutional rights. Under current law, Federal district courts
may compel State and local governments to levy taxes in excess of their
State law taxing powers when such a remedy would be required to enforce a
Federal constitutional right.  In addition, Federal courts have long been
held to possess the equitable authority to compel State and local
governments to exercise their existing taxing authority even when the
Constitution would not require imposition of such a remedy.  The bill's
proposed restrictions would curtail the equitable discretion of Federal
district courts, as well as deprive them of the power to remedy certain
constitutional rights.  The latter deprivation of power raises
constitutional concerns and would be subject to reasonable constitutional
challenge. (Section 5)

 Would give parties in civil cases the right to exercise preemptive
strikes against Article III judges, without even a requirement to show
cause. Such a procedure threatens to undermine the independence of the
Federal Judiciary that Article III of the Constitution was intended to
secure, as well as undermine the public's confidence in life-tenured and
constitutionally appointed Federal judges as impartial adjudicators.
Litigants assuredly will engage in judge and forum shopping -- sometimes
with improper motives. Additionally, these peremptory strikes would add
further delay to the civil litigation system and erode the rule of law.
(Section 6)

     Would require the use of a three-judge panel for certain injunctions and
    declaratory actions. This provision would adversely affect the operation
    of several preemptive Federal statutes in situations where a State has
    passed a referendum that is contrary to Federal law. Lastly, this
    provision is objectionable because it would provide unprecedented direct
    and immediate access to the Supreme Court, even when the three-judge court
    denies injunctive relief. (Section 2)

    * * * * * * *