The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 requires the President and the administration to develop a master plan for the management and use of forests and rangelands. The Act requires that a 'Renewable Resource Assessment' (the Assessment) be prepared by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Act also requires the Secretary of Agriculture to prepare and submit to the President a 'Renewable Resource Program' (the Program) for the protection, management, and development of the National Forest System. As part of the Renewable Resource Program, the Secretary of Agriculture also must develop 'land management plans' for each area in the National Forest System. These plans must specify the amount and manner in which timber may be cut. The Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to issue several varieties of annual reports. A second variety of annual report must describe the amount and location of National Forest system land that needs reforestation and the approximate amount of money required each year to replant this land. A third required annual report must discuss the benefits and possible harms of using various herbicides and pesticides in the National Forest System. The President is required to submit a 'Statement of Policy' to Congress 'to be used in framing budget requests by that Administration for Forest Service activities.' In addition, each year the President is required to submit, with the Forest Service budget request, a statement 'expressing in qualitative and quantitative terms the extent to which the programs and policies projected under the budget meet the policies approved by Congress.' The Act requires the President, in submitting the proposed annual budget, (1) to 'express in qualitative and quantitative terms' the extent to which the proposed budget is consistent with the Statement of Policy, and (2) to 'set forth the reason or reasons for requesting the Congress to approve the lesser programs or policies presented' in the budget. President Carter submitted the proposed fiscal 1979 budget to Congress on January 20, 1978. Various legislators criticized the proposed budget as excessively penurious in light of the Program's recommendations. At no time during the hearings, however, did a legislator or witness assert that the President had failed to comply with section 1606(b) of the Act in any respect. P sent a letter to President Carter claiming that he had not complied with section 1606(b). The letter asked the President promptly to supply an adequate Statement of Reasons for recommending lesser Forest Service funding. The House passed the Forest Service appropriations bill on June 21, 1978. The Senate passed a similar bill on August 9, 1978. Each chamber approved the conference report. The President signed the bill on October 17, 1978. The budget process began again in January, 1979, with the President's submission of a proposed budget for fiscal 1980. On June 8, 1978, P filed this suit asking for mandamus and declaratory relief. P claimed that the President had failed to comply with the requirement that the budget request 'express in qualitative and quantitative terms the extent to which the programs and policies projected under the budget' fall short of the plans established by the Statement of Policy accepted by Congress. P also alleged that the President had failed adequately to set forth the 'reason or reasons for requesting the Congress to approve the lesser programs or policies.' P is upset that no reasons were given for favoring certain components of the Forest Service budget over others. The court held the first count was moot because information supplied by administration witnesses during budget hearings fulfilled the 'qualitative and quantitative' requirement. The second count was dismissed because no 'discernible standards' existed to permit a court to determine whether the President had supplied an adequate Statement of Reasons in requesting lesser appropriations than that envisioned by the Statement of Policy. P’s lawsuit raised a nonjusticiable political question within the meaning of Baker v. Carr.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.