5 U.S.C. § 905

Limitation on powers

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A reorganization plan may not provide for, and a reorganization under this chapter may not have the effect of—(1) creating a new executive department or renaming an existing executive department, abolishing or transferring an executive department or independent regulatory agency, or all the functions thereof, or consolidating two or more executive departments or two or more independent regulatory agencies, or all the functions thereof;(2) continuing an agency beyond the period authorized by law for its existence or beyond the time when it would have terminated if the reorganization had not been made;(3) continuing a function beyond the period authorized by law for its exercise or beyond the time when it would have terminated if the reorganization had not been made;(4) authorizing an agency to exercise a function which is not expressly authorized by law at the time the plan is transmitted to Congress;(5) creating a new agency which is not a component or part of an existing executive department or independent agency;(6) increasing the term of an office beyond that provided by law for the office; or(7) dealing with more than one logically consistent subject matter.(b) A provision contained in a reorganization plan may take effect only if the plan is transmitted to Congress (in accordance with section 903(b)) on or before December 31, 1984.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 396; Pub. L. 91–5, Mar. 27, 1969, 83 Stat. 6; Pub. L. 92–179, § 4, Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 576; Pub. L. 95–17, § 2, Apr. 6, 1977, 91 Stat. 31; Pub. L. 96–230, Apr. 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 329; Pub. L. 98–614, §§ 2(a), 5(a), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3192, 3193.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Derivation	U.S. Code	Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large
(a)	5 U.S.C. 133z–3(a).	June 20, 1949, ch. 226, § 5(a), 63 Stat. 205. July 2, 1964, Pub. L. 88–351, § 2, 78 Stat. 240.
(b)	5 U.S.C. 133z–3(b).	June 20, 1949, ch. 226, § 5(b), 63 Stat. 205.
		Feb. 11, 1953, ch. 3, 67 Stat. 4.
		Mar. 25, 1955, ch. 16, 69 Stat. 14.
		Sept. 4, 1957, Pub. L. 85–286, § 1, 71 Stat. 611.
		Apr. 7, 1961, Pub. L. 87–18, 75 Stat. 41.
		July 2, 1964, Pub. L. 88–351, § 1, 78 Stat. 240.
		June 18, 1965, Pub. L. 89–43, 79 Stat. 135.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1984—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 98–614, § 5(a)(1), inserted “or renaming an existing executive department”.

Subsec. (a)(5) to (7). Pub. L. 98–614, § 5(a)(2), added par. (5) and redesignated former pars. (5) and (6) as (6) and (7), respectively.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–614, § 2(a), substituted “(in accordance with section 903(b)) on or before December 31, 1984” for “within four years of the date of enactment of the Reorganization Act of 1977”.

1980—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 96–230 substituted “four years” for “three years”.

1977—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 95–17 substituted “an executive department or independent regulatory agency,” for “an Executive department” and “or more executive departments or two or more independent regulatory agencies,” for “or more Executive departments”.

Subsec. (a)(6), (7). Pub. L. 95–17 redesignated par. (7) as (6). Former par. (6), which related to limitation on reorganization plans that have effect of transferring to or consolidating with another agency the government of the District of Columbia or all the functions thereof which are subject to this chapter, or abolishing that government or all those functions, was struck out.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 95–17 substituted “within three years of the date of enactment of the Reorganization Act of 1977” for “before April 1, 1973”.

1971—Subsec. (a)(7). Pub. L. 92–179, § 4(a), added par. (7).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 92–179, § 4(b), substituted “April 1, 1973” for “April 1, 1971”.

1969—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 91–5 substituted “April 1, 1971” for “December 31, 1968”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesPlan for Transportation Department Reorganization

Pub. L. 104–50, title III, § 335, Nov. 15, 1995, 109 Stat. 458, provided in part that, notwithstanding section 905(b) of this section, the President could prepare and transmit to Congress not later than the date for transmittal of the Budget Request for Fiscal Year 1997, a reorganization plan, pursuant to chapter 9 of this title, for the Department of Transportation surface transportation activities and the relationship of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation to the Department.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, Cross v. The Hernando Bank, Inc., Cross, 724 F.2d 1188 (5th Cir. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, Cross v. The Hernando Bank, Inc., Cross, 724 F.2d 1188 (5th Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “1 of 1978 conformed to the substantive provision of the Act and did not transgress any of the limitations imposed by 5 U.S.C. § 905 , the plan is enforceable as law.”

Lopez v. Bulova Watch Co., Inc., 582 F. Supp. 755 (D.R.I. 1984). · cites it 2× “1 of 1978 conformed to the substantive provision of the Act and did not transgress any of the limitations imposed by 5 U.S.C. § 905 , the plan is enforceable as law.”

Muller Optical Co. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 574 F. Supp. 946 (W.D. Tenn. 1983). “§ 903 (a)(2), nor could he abolish independent regulatory agencies or their functions or consolidate two or more such independent regulatory agencies, 5 U.S.C. § 905 (a)(1). These limitations had not been present in previous reorganization plans.”

Swaida v. IBM Ret. Plan, 570 F. Supp. 482 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). “Although plaintiff challenges the authority of the Secretary of Labor to issue the temporary elapsed time regulations, Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law at 30-37, the Court finds that, in light of the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to issue the final regulations clarifying…”

Shell Oil Co. v. Kreps, 445 F. Supp. 1128 (D.D.C. 1978). “” While these reorganization plans cannot be interpreted to “authoriz[e] an agency to exercise a function which is not expressly authorized by law at the time the plan is transmitted to Congress,” 5 U.S.C. § 905 , they nevertheless demonstrate (1) that the Secretary’s broad…”

Local 2677, Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Phillips, 358 F. Supp. 60 (D.D.C. 1973). “§ 2941 (b) (1970): (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 5(b) of the Reorganization Act of 1949 [now 5 U.S.C.A. § 905 (b), under which the President’s power to initiate a reorganization plan expired April 1, 1973], at any time after one year from August 20, 1964.”

Dubois v. Fab-Con, Inc., 848 So. 2d 679 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “Dubois was injured while on the partly-sunken barge rather than being on the Rene Cross crane barge at the time of the alleged injury. The statute contains no requirement for its application that the “covered person” injured actually be on the “vessel” at the time of the injury.”

United States v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist., 592 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1979). · cites it 2× “5 U.S.C.A. § 905 (a)(4) (West 1977). The School District contends that the Reorganization Plan is ineffective because the Civil Rights Act as amended in 1972 “did not expressly authorize the function that the reorganization plan purports to vest in the Attorney General.”

Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Chrysler Corp., 595 F. Supp. 344 (E.D. Mich. 1984). “5 U.S.C. § 905 . The EEOC concludes that Congress did not intend that all reorganizations which occurred under the President’s plans should later be undone by the courts if the legislative veto provision was found to be unconstitutional.”

Munnelly v. United States Postal Serv., 805 F.2d 295 (8th Cir. 1986). “5 U.S.C. § 905 (a)(1). The Postal Reorganization Act had just such an effect.”

Muller Optical Co. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 743 F.2d 380 (6th Cir. 1984). · cites it 3× “” 5 U.S.C. § 905 (a)(1). He is proscribed from extending the life of an agency and from authorizing an agency to exercise a function which is not expressly authorized by law at the time of the plan.”

Quivira Mining Co. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 728 F.2d 477 (10th Cir. 1984). “” 5 U.S.C. § 905 (a)(4). Moreover, the Act clearly contemplates the orderly continuity of functions before and after reorganization.”

Show all 19 citing cases →

— 5 U.S.C. § 905(b) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.