Foley v. District of Co. Bd. of Elec. & Ethics, 10124.

• Decision Date: 24 May 1976
• Docket Number: No. 10124.,10124.
• Parties: H. Thomas FOLEY et al., Appellants, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS, Appellee.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

Page 305

358 A.2d 305

H. Thomas FOLEY et al., Appellants, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS, Appellee.

No. 10124.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued March 9, 1976.

Decided May 24, 1976.

H. Thomas Foley, pro se, with whom Robert P. Santangelo, pro se, and Robert F. Donohoe, pro se, were on the brief, for appellants.

Warren M. Silver, Washington, D.C., with whom Winfred R. Mundle, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Before REILLY, Chief Judge, and KERN and HARRIS, Associate Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants brought suit in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia seeking a declaratory judgment that D.C.Code 1975 Supp., § 1-1182(b)¹, is unconstitutional and an injunction restraining appellee District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics from enforcing the statute and the accompanying regulations adopted by the Board. The trial court dismissed appellants' complaint for failure to state a cause of action and for failure to exhaust their administrative remedy. We affirm the court's action on the latter ground.

Appellants are medical doctors and employees of the District of Columbia government occupying positions in grade GS-15 of the General Schedule under 5 U.S.C. § 5332 (1970), and as such, they may be subject to the filing requirement imposed by D.C.Code 1975 Supp., § 1-1182(b). Pursuant to the authority conferred on the Board by § 1-1182(b) to determine which employees of the District of Columbia shall be required to file financial statements, and the general rule-making powers delegated by D.C.Code 1975 Supp., § 1-1105(a) (8), the Board promulgated 22 DCRR § 13.15. This regulation provides in pertinent part:

[A]ny individual may be exempted [from filing financial statements] upon and pursuant to a written verified application by the individual and a finding by the Board that his or her duties (the nonelected officer, employee and/or appointee) do not involve or affect the following areas as specified in paragraph "b" below.

(b) Contracting, procurement, administration of grants or subsidies, planning, inspecting, licensing, regulating, auditing, or any other activity which would have an economic impact on the interests of any non-governmental enterprise, or any other potential conflict of interests as may be determined by the Board.

Appellants Foley and Donohoe refused to file financial statements or to request exemptions for the years 1973 and 1974 under the above section 13.15. Appellant Santangelo applied for and was granted an exemption for 1973 but did not file either a financial statement or a request for an exemption for 1974. As a result, fines were imposed on two of the appellants.

It is a "long settled rule of judicial administration that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted." Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 50-51, 58 S.Ct. 459, 463, 82 L.Ed. 638 (1938). One rationale of the rule is judicial efficiency and economy, for if an administrative agency can vindicate or protect an individual's rights there is no need for a court to intervene. See McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 193-95, 89 S. Ct. 1657, 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969); Camp v. Herzog, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 373, 374, 190 F.2d 605, 606 (1951). Moreover, given the traditional reluctance of courts to decide constitutional issues unnecessarily, "the very fact that constitutional issues are put forward constitutes a strong reason for not allowing this suit either to anticipate or to take the place of [a final alternative judicial or administrative procedure]. When that has been done, it is possible that nothing will be left of appellant's claim . . ." Aircraft & Diesel Corp. v. Hirsch, 331 U.S. 752, 772, 67 S.Ct. 1493, 1503, 91 L.Ed. 1796 (1947); see Hadnott v. Laird, 149 U.S.App.D.C. 358, 463 F.2d 304 (1972).

We believe that appellants' failure to pursue their administrative remedy by requesting the Board to grant them exemptions from the disclosure requirements precludes their initiating a judicial action to have the statute declared unconstitutional and to enjoin its enforcement. See, Smith v. Murphy, D.C.App., 294 A.2d 357 (1972); Hadnott v. Laird, supra; Camp v. Herzog, supra; Doe v. Martin, 404 F.Supp. 753, 763 (D.D.C.1975).

Appellants argue that they need not exhaust any administrative remedies because such an effort would be futile² in that the relief they request, a declaration that § 1-1182(b) is unconstitutional, has already been refused by the Board. But this argument by appellants in our view misconstrues the nature of the administrative relief available to them. Since appellants are only harmed by application of the allegedly unconstitutional statute to themselves if they obtain through administrative processes an exemption from its requirements there can be no potential injury to them³ and consequently there is no reason for us to determine the statute's constitutionality.⁴ As the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals noted in Hadnott v. Laird, supra, 149 U.S.App.D.C. at 364, 463 F.2d at 310:

[I]t would be particularly inappropriate for this court to involve itself with such constitutional claims at this point. Involvement might well be unnecessary, if the plaintiffs pursued the range of alternatives available to them . . . .

Hence we are not persuaded that the general rule, requiring exhaustion of all...