Why It Matters
When Congress creates a federal legal obligation without specifying how to enforce it, the law may be effectively unenforceable if no other enforcement mechanism applies. A new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report examines private rights of action, which allow nongovernment entities to bring civil lawsuits to enforce federal law, and the choices lawmakers face when deciding who can enforce legislation. Federal laws can also be enforced through criminal prosecutions, administrative proceedings, civil actions by federal officials and, when authorized, lawsuits by state attorneys general.
The Big Picture
Courts once more readily recognized implied private rights of action in statutes that did not expressly authorize lawsuits. More recent case law directs courts to determine whether Congress intended to create "not just a private right but also a private remedy." As a result, CRS says courts are unlikely to find an implied private cause of action when legislation does not expressly authorize private enforcement.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides a potential alternative when a statute directs or authorizes a federal agency to act but contains no express enforcement provision. APA review is generally unavailable, however, when another statute precludes judicial review or law commits an action to agency discretion.
When Congress creates an express private right of action, CRS identifies four major considerations: who can sue, who can be sued, where a lawsuit can proceed, and what relief is available. Congress may authorize lawsuits by broad or specific groups, qui tam relators or citizen-suit plaintiffs, but it cannot waive constitutional standing requirements.
Potential defendants can include private parties, corporations, or government entities. Lawsuits against governments raise sovereign immunity issues because federal and state governments and their agents are generally immune from suit unless they consent or Congress validly abrogates immunity. CRS uses H.R. 4405, which became Public Law 119-38, as an example of legislation imposing legal obligations without expressly providing for enforcement.
The Bottom Line
CRS says expressly authorizing enforcement can reduce uncertainty and help Congress carry out its policy goals, while statutory silence can leave uncertainty about whether an obligation is judicially enforceable. The report also notes an unresolved legal debate over whether stays and vacatur of agency actions under the APA constitute distinct judicial remedies.
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article