Independent Counsel Law Held Constitutional

WASHINGTON —  A federal judge has ruled for the first time that the independent counsel law underpinning an unprecedented number of investigations of Reagan Administration officials is constitutional.

U.S. District Judge Aubrey E. Robinson Jr. said the legislation was an appropriate and measured response by Congress “to the recurrent question of how to enforce the laws of the United States when they are violated by high government officials. . . .”

“For the United States,” Robinson added, “the act represents a landmark effort to instill public confidence in the fair and ethical behavior of public officials.”

Ruling a Surprise

The ruling came as a surprise in light of the U.S. Court of Appeals’ instructions to Robinson in June, in a case involving fired National Security Council aide Oliver L. North, to try to settle the matter on other than constitutional grounds. Robinson did just that on July 11, skirting North’s constitutional challenge to independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh’s investigation and holding instead that Walsh’s backup appointment in March as a Justice Department prosecutor was valid.

The judge’s latest ruling, by contrast, met the constitutional issues head-on. It was issued Monday, evidently in response to challenges to the law arising from three grand jury subpoenas issued earlier this year--not by Walsh, but by other independent counsels.

As chief judge of the U.S. District Court, Robinson is in charge of all federal grand juries here. He did not specify the cases that prompted the ruling on the grounds that the matters are under seal.

Three-Judge Court

Charges that the law is unconstitutional have been addressed primarily to provisions creating a special three-judge federal court to appoint independent counsels and to define the scope of their investigations. Defense lawyers for North and other individuals have contended that the independent counsels are “superior officers” who, under the Constitution, must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Robinson rejected that argument. The Constitution, he wrote, “expressly grants to Congress the authority to ‘vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.’ ”

Citing earlier cases on that point, Robinson said: “The independent counsel is clearly an ‘inferior officer’--he is appointed for a single task to serve for a temporary, limited period.”

North has already served notice that he is appealing Robinson’s July 11 ruling affirming Walsh’s backup appointment by Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III. Monday’s decision is likely to be appealed too.