What Happened?
A recent Supreme Court ruling could put some of the federal government's top watchdog agency's powers on shaky legal ground. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a new report examining unresolved constitutional questions about the comptroller general, who leads the investigative arm of congress known as the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
The comptroller general, who leads GAO, is appointed by the president to a 15-year term and confirmed by the Senate, but can only be removed by Congress, not the president alone. A Supreme Court decision, *Trump v. Slaughter,* in June sharpened long-standing questions by identifying binding rulemaking, enforcement through administrative proceedings, and civil litigation on behalf of the United States as core executive powers that must remain under presidential control.
Why Does it Matter to Me?
GAO is the agency that checks whether your tax dollars are being spent as Congress intended.
CRS identifies several GAO functions that could be challenged as executive in nature, including settling federal accounts, suing to force the release of funds a president has withheld, and assessing civil penalties under federal energy conservation law.
Both Sides, Now
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) combines congressional oversight duties with presidential appointment of its leader, the comptroller general, and strong protection against removal. When lawmakers created the agency in 1921, they placed it outside the executive departments and gave its head what they called "semijudicial" responsibilities.
Opponents point to a direct precedent: in *Bowsher v. Synar*, decided in 1986, the Supreme Court struck down deficit-reduction powers assigned to the comptroller general, ruling that an officer removable by Congress cannot exercise executive power, according to the Cornell Legal Information Institute. Critics argue the same logic could apply to GAO's remaining executive-style functions today.
The CRS report notes that neither *Bowsher* nor *Trump v. Slaughter* resolved the constitutionality of GAO's remaining authorities, leaving the question open for future litigation or congressional action. President Donald Trump has not publicly stated a position on GAO's structure, and the CRS report does not mention one. But during his first days in office, President Trump fired 21 inspector generals. These are independent watchdogs assigned to different Federal agencies who are supposed to make sure the agency operates effectively and legally.
The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 set up presidential appointment of GAO's head, and a 1980 law required at least three commission recommendations.
What Happens Next?
CRS says the comptroller general's exercise of potentially executive functions "may result in continued questions" under both the 1986 ruling and *Trump v. Slaughter*. Congress could reconsider the legal powers of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the agency that audits federal spending.
A legal challenge could be brought over GAO's potentially executive functions, which include suing to enforce the release of impounded funds and assessing civil penalties.
The remaining question: Will Congress act to clarify GAO's legal footing before a court challenge forces its hand?
---
AllCiv makes it easy to stay politically informed and involved.
---
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article