New York Law Review

Tag: Under 21 v. City of New York

  • Under 21 v. City of New York, 65 N.Y.2d 344 (1985): Executive Overreach and Legislative Authority in Municipal Contracting

    Under 21 v. City of New York, 65 N.Y.2d 344 (1985)

    An executive order that mandates a specific percentage of city contracts to be awarded to a particular category of business, without specific legislative authorization, constitutes an unlawful usurpation of legislative power.

    Summary

    This case addresses the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches in New York City. The Mayor issued an executive order requiring that 10% of city construction contracts be awarded to “locally based enterprises” (LBEs). Trade associations challenged the order. The court held that the Mayor exceeded his authority by creating a program that mandated preferential treatment for a specific group without explicit legislative authorization. The court emphasized that while the Mayor has broad executive powers, he cannot legislate policy, particularly regarding the allocation of public contracts, without a specific delegation of such power from the City Council.

    Facts

    In an effort to stimulate economic development in depressed areas of New York City, the Mayor issued Executive Order No. 53. The order mandated that city agencies ensure that at least 10% of the total dollar amount of construction contracts be awarded to Locally Based Enterprises (LBEs). LBEs were defined as businesses with gross receipts of $500,000 or less that either earned a substantial amount of their income in an economic development area or employed a substantial number of economically disadvantaged persons. Seventeen trade associations challenged the legality of the order.

    Procedural History

    The plaintiffs, trade associations, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate the Executive Order. The defendants, the Mayor and the City of New York, moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. The Special Term granted the motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division reversed, declaring the order and its regulations unconstitutional, unlawful, and unenforceable. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Mayor of the City of New York, through an executive order, can lawfully mandate that a specific percentage of all construction contracts be awarded to “locally based enterprises” without specific legislative authorization.

    Holding

    No, because the executive’s action constitutes an unlawful usurpation of legislative power in the absence of a specific delegation of that power from the legislature.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court emphasized the separation of powers doctrine, noting that the City Council holds legislative power in New York City, while the Mayor is the chief executive responsible for implementing and enforcing legislative pronouncements. The Mayor cannot prescribe a remedial device not embraced by the City Council’s policy. The court relied on precedent, citing Matter of Fullilove v. Beame and Matter of Broidrick v. Lindsay, where executive actions establishing affirmative action plans were struck down for exceeding executive authority. The court stated, “Where, as here, the executive adopts a plan specifying that a certain percentage of city construction contracts are to be allotted to a particular group or category of business enterprise, he has gone beyond his function of implementing general Charter-conferred powers. Such action constitutes an exercise of legislative power.” The court emphasized that the legislature must specifically delegate the power to mandate awards of construction contracts to a particular group, along with adequate guidelines and standards. Because no such specific legislative authority was granted to the Mayor, the executive action was deemed an unlawful usurpation of the legislative function. The court acknowledged the Mayor’s broad powers under the New York City Charter, including the power to enter into contracts. However, it clarified that the general power to contract does not provide a basis for creating a remedial plan absent specific legislative authorization. The court concluded that “However desirable the ostensible purpose may be, there is simply no legislative authority permitting the Mayor to unilaterally initiate this type of program or the means for effectuating it.”

  • Under 21 v. City of New York, 57 N.Y.2d 374 (1982): Executive Authority and Affirmative Action Programs

    Under 21 v. City of New York, 57 N.Y.2d 374 (1982)

    The executive branch does not have the authority to initiate affirmative action mandates in hiring practices without explicit legislative authorization.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether the executive branch in New York City can mandate affirmative action programs for hiring practices without legislative authorization. The Court of Appeals held that while the executive branch has the power to implement programs prohibiting discriminatory hiring practices, it cannot mandate affirmative action without explicit legislative approval. The court emphasized the separation of powers, stating that mandating affirmative action is a policy decision reserved for the legislative branch. The decision clarifies the distinction between prohibiting discrimination and actively mandating specific hiring practices based on affirmative action principles.

    Facts

    The Mayor of New York City issued an executive order mandating affirmative action in hiring practices. The order went beyond prohibiting discriminatory practices and required employers to take specific actions to increase minority representation. The plaintiffs, “Under 21,” challenged the executive order, arguing that it exceeded the Mayor’s authority.

    Procedural History

    The case reached the New York Court of Appeals after a challenge to the Mayor’s executive order. The lower courts did not explicitly address the core issue of executive authority but the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal to address this fundamental question concerning the distribution of powers.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the executive branch has the authority to mandate affirmative action in hiring practices without legislative authorization, when existing legislation only prohibits discriminatory hiring practices?

    Holding

    No, because mandating affirmative action in hiring practices is a policy decision that falls within the purview of the legislative branch, and the executive branch cannot impose such mandates without explicit legislative authorization.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that while the executive branch has the power and obligation to implement programs designed to prohibit discriminatory hiring practices, mandating affirmative action is a different matter. The court distinguished between prohibiting discrimination and mandating specific actions to achieve certain hiring percentages or quotas. According to the court, the latter constitutes a policy decision that must be made by the legislative branch. The court referenced its prior decision in Matter of Broidrick v Lindsay, emphasizing that there is a “dramatic distinction between the expressed legislative policy of prohibiting employment discrimination and the mayoral policy of mandating employment ‘percentages.’”. The court further stated that while voluntary affirmative action plans are permissible, mandating such plans under threat of legal sanctions is an overreach of executive authority. The court noted, “The difference between obligations that require the taking of certain steps, and those that merely require one to refrain from others, is, in this sensitive area of racial relations, not merely one of degree, but of kind.” The court clarified that its holding does not prevent the executive branch from implementing measures that enlarge the pool of eligible candidates based on discrimination-free merit selection; instead, the limitation applies specifically to mandating affirmative action hiring practices.