Chapter 2: The Legal Framework
Page 2-58 GAO-16-464SP
Congress is free to amend or repeal prior legislation.
67
This leads to an
important corollary to the principle that Congress intends to achieve a
consistent body of law, which is that “repeals by implication” are
disfavored, and statutes will be construed to avoid this result whenever
reasonably possible. That is, courts generally will find that a statute
repeals an earlier one only if the repeal is explicit. E.g., Tennessee
Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 189–90 (1978); Morton v. Mancari,
417 U.S. 535, 549 (1974); Posadas v. National City Bank of New York,
296 U.S. 497, 503 (1936); B-307720, Sept. 27, 2007; B-290011, Mar. 25,
2002; B-261589, Mar. 6, 1996; 72 Comp. Gen. 295, 297 (1993);
64 Comp. Gen. 142, 145 (1984); 58 Comp. Gen. 687, 691–92 (1979);
B-258163, Sept. 29, 1994; B-236057, May 9, 1990. Repeals by
implication are particularly disfavored in the appropriations context.
Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society, 503 U.S. 429, 440 (1992).
A repeal by implication will be found only where “the intention of the
legislature to repeal [is] clear and manifest.” Posadas, 296 U.S. at 503.
See also B-236057, May 9, 1990. The principle that implied repeals are
disfavored applies with special weight when it is asserted that a general
statute repeals a more specific statute. 72 Comp. Gen. at 297.
Second, if two statutes are in irreconcilable conflict, the more recent
statute, as the latest expression of Congress, governs. As one court
concluded in a statement illustrating the eloquence of simplicity, “[t]he
statutes are thus in conflict, the earlier permitting and the later
prohibiting,” so the later statute supersedes the earlier. Eisenberg v.
Corning, 179 F.2d 275, 277 (D.C. Cir. 1949). In a sense, the “last in time”
rule is yet another way of expressing the repeal by implication principle.
We state it separately to highlight its narrowness: it applies only when the
two statutes cannot be reconciled in any reasonable manner, and then
only to the extent of the conflict. E.g., B-323157, May 21, 2012 (“[W]hen
two, equally specific provisions are in irreconcilable conflict, the Supreme
Court views the later act as an implied repeal of the earlier one to the
extent of the conflict . . . . This is because the more recent enactment is
the latest expression of Congress.”); B-308715, Apr. 20, 2007 (“It is well
established that a later enacted, specific statute will typically supersede a
conflicting previously enacted, general statute to the extent of the
inconsistency.”). See also Posadas, 296 U.S. at 503; B-255979, Oct. 30,
1995; B-203900, Feb. 2, 1989; B-226389, Nov. 14, 1988; B-214172,
67
Such amendments or repeals may not, however, violate the Constitution. We discuss
this issue later in this subsection.