Private bills persist partly because Congress waives requirements courts would impose

Evidence

Suppose the Congress were determined to reduce bills to the minimum. Is it practicable to eliminate them entirely? If not, why not? Note that the Congress has not in the past insisted that a claimant show that the government employee was acting in the scope of his employment. Under the Tort Claims Act, a court would so require. Thus, a claimant who has lost in court might seek a private bill. Now can Congress resolve this problem so as to eliminate the use of private bills for this purpose? — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 2298

Categorization

• XREF: Ricochets off the FTCA scope-of-employment material summarized in earlier chapter selections; the private bill fills the gap the tort act’s stricter standard leaves open. — connects to: Congress steadily delegates private claims adjudication to courts and agencies — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 2294; Whether legislatures or courts better adjudicate claims is an unsettled comparative question — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 2296; Courts cannot preserve congressional power that Congress fails to use — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 2870

Broader Connections

• Courts cannot preserve congressional power that Congress fails to use #complicates (0.75) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 2870