Constitutionality of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005: Litigation

Summary

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 has been challenged as unconstitutional in several lawsuits. The plaintiffs have alleged that the House and Senate did not comply with the constitutional provisions relating to enacting bills because the bill that was sent to the President did not pass the chambers in identical form. All the district courts that have decided these cases have dismissed them on the basis of the enrolled bill rule enunciated by the Supreme Court in 1892. This rule provides that courts should not look behind the text of an enrolled bill signed by the presiding officers of the House and the Senate and presented to the President; the signatures of these congressional officers on the enrolled bill attest that it has passed both chambers. Appeals have been filed in some of the decided cases. In two of these appealed cases, district court dismissals have been affirmed. The United States Supreme Court has denied a petition to review a circuit court’s dismissal. This report will be updated to reflect further developments.