Farm bill opponents unlikely to rush to the courts

Several critics of the farm bill said they are not considering litigation to challenge the $307 billion measure even though an unusual procedural snafu opened up the possibility that the new law violates the Constitution. 

{mosads}The Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union, Oxfam, Environmental Working Group and congressional critics of the legislation all said that they were not considering litigation to challenge the five-year measure even though an entire section on trade policy was accidentally omitted from a version that President Bush vetoed last week. Congress overwhelmingly overrode Bush's veto of the bill without the section on trade policy, with the Senate voting 82-13 and the House voting 316-108 to make the measure the law of the land. Lawmakers plan to take up the missing section when Congress reconvenes in June.

But House Republicans and other critics argued that the new law violates the Constitution, which requires each chamber of Congress and the president to consider identical bills.

In interviews, however, each of these groups said that it would be difficult to prove they had legal standing to sue. Even if they were successful on that front, Congress could easily quash the lawsuits by taking up the entire farm bill again and passing it by healthy margins, making litigation futile, the critics say.

“They have the recourse to put this whole thing to rest,” said Nachama Soloveichik, spokeswoman for the Club for Growth, which says the bill provides too much in subsidies for farmers.

Larry Hart, the director of government relations at the American Conservative Union, said that litigation is under consideration but added that it was a “last resort.”

Supporters of the law say that they are on solid legal ground, pointing to an 1892 Supreme Court precedent in arguing that Congress has the last say in determining what is a legitimate document. In 2005, an undetected clerical error led the House and Senate to approve slightly different versions of the Deficit Reduction Act, which President Bush signed into law. Lawsuits seeking to overturn that law were unsuccessful because of the 1892 decision.

In addition, legal scholars say that courts may be wary of stepping into the dispute if both the legislative and executive branches agree that the measure is the law.

David Vladeck, a constitutional law expert at Georgetown University, said that a court challenge could be difficult, but plaintiffs could have a chance if they take their suits outside of the District of Columbia, where the last suit was ruled.

“They would not be legally bound to follow the ruling,” he said of courts outside D.C.