Bowsher v. Synar 판결을 통해서 본 미국연방감사원(GAO) 법적위상 문제와 법제적 시사점에 관한 연구

The purpose of this Article is to draw the legal issues and legislative implications of the U.S. Government Accountability Office(GAO) through the analysis of the Bowsher v Synar Case. The issue of Bowsher v Synar is to whether the role of the GAO in the budget reduction process under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, enacted for the controlling the fiscal deficit, violated the principle of separation of powers. Reviewing the issues, the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned whether the GAO's legal position is or not the executive or the legislative branch through the enabling act. The Court considered that the GAO was to be an organ of the Legislative branch due to the role of Congress for the appointment and removal of its Chief Officer in the authorizing act. In addition, the Court judged that the function of the GAO under the issued act is to ‘interpret the law’ and ‘determine the relevant facts’, so it is an executive action. Therefore, the Court ruled that this executive action is performed only by the agencies subject to the executive branch. But the issued act allowing the GAO, subject to the legislative branch, to perform executive functions violate the principle of separation of powers, which forbids one branch from infringing on the other, for legislative branch’s breaching the extent of executive branch. This article critically analyzed the Bowsher v Synar judgment for the issues by considering the institutional viewpoint for the separation of power and reviewing the constitutional purse power of congress. As a result, it is difficult to regard the act of calculating the budget reduction by the GAO as an executive act. Through this critical analysis of Bowsher v Synar’s judgment, this article was able to draw implications from the legal aspect and the legal theory aspect.