# Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Donovan

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · July 16, 1985 · 766 F.2d 1550

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7851171

## Case

- **Full name:** ALASKA AIRLINES, INC. v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, individually and as Secretary of Labor v. BROTHERHOOD of RAILWAY and AIRLINE CLERKS, Appellants ALASKA AIRLINES, INC. v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, individually and as Secretary of Labor, Association of Flight Attendants, Appellant ALASKA AIRLINES, INC. v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, individually and as Secretary of Labor, Air Line Pilots Association, International, Appellant ALASKA AIRLINES, INC. v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, individually and as Secretary of Labor, Air Line Pilots Association
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** July 16, 1985
- **Citations:** 766 F.2d 1550; 247 U.S. App. D.C. 132; 119 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3383; 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 31443
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Ginsburg
- **Judges:** Ginsburg, Starr, Tamm
- **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7851171

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding on the merits that the existence of an unexercised legislative veto provision in a statute would render invalid actions taken under the statute unless the legislative veto provisions were severable from the portion of the statute pursuant to which the challenged action…

## Opinion text

GINSBURG, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
The court’s intricate discussion of preliminary issues seems to me distracting. As I view this case, only one genuine issue appears: would Congress have preferred excision of the veto provision to demolition of the airline employee protective prescriptions. Before the district court, the Department conceded the unconstitutionality of the veto, and does not contest that matter here. Therefore, we face no appeal from decision of a constitutional question; instead, a ripe statutory interpretation controversy — a construction of legislation dispute securely within our appellate jurisdiction — is before us. Furthermore, as the court recognizes, at 1558-1559 & n. 5, a ruling that the labor protective prescriptions are severable strips discourse on Chadha’s “retroactive application” of “any importance.”
On the severability question, I am in full agreement with the court’s judgment, which undertakes a moderate salvage operation. Deletion of the veto preserves section 43 and thereby gives effect to the dominant intent of Congress. A declaration of inseverability, tearing down the section in its entirety, would be far more destructive of the legislature’s will. Cf. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 108-09 , 96 S.Ct. 612, 677 , 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (per curiam).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7851171. Public record. Not legal advice.