Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Suing The President For First Amendment Violations, Sonja R. West
Suing The President For First Amendment Violations, Sonja R. West
Scholarly Works
On any given day, it seems, President Donald Trump can be found attacking, threatening, or punishing the press and other individuals whose speech he dislikes. His actions, moreover, inevitably raise the question: Do any of these individuals or organizations (or any future ones) have a viable claim against the President for violating their First Amendment rights?
One might think that the ability to sue the President for violation of the First Amendment would be relatively settled. The answer, however, is not quite that straightforward. Due to several unique qualities about the First Amendment and the presidency, it is not entirely …
A Politics-Reinforcing Political Question Doctrine, Harlan G. Cohen
A Politics-Reinforcing Political Question Doctrine, Harlan G. Cohen
Scholarly Works
The modern political question doctrine has long been criticized for shielding the political branches from proper judicial scrutiny and allowing the courts to abdicate their responsibilities. Critics of the doctrine thus cheered when the Supreme Court, in Zivotofsky I, announced a narrowing of the doctrine. Their joy though may have been short-lived. Almost immediately, Zivotofsky II demonstrated the dark side of judicial review of the separation of powers between Congress and the President: deciding separations of powers cases may permanently cut one of the political branches out of certain debates. Judicial scrutiny in a particular case could eliminate political scrutiny …
Who Has Standing To Sue The President Over Allegedly Unconstitutional Emoluments?, Matthew I. Hall
Who Has Standing To Sue The President Over Allegedly Unconstitutional Emoluments?, Matthew I. Hall
Scholarly Works
Three pending lawsuits challenge President Trump's practice of accepting payments and other benefits from foreign governments through his businesses as violative of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. They also allege that the President's practice of accepting payments and benefits from state or federal governmental units violates the Domestic Emoluments Clause. These actions raise interesting questions about the meaning of two little-discussed provisions of the Constitution. But before reaching the merits the courts will first have to grapple with issues of justiciability - in particular, with the question whether plaintiffs have "standing" to bring their claims in federal court. This article explains …
Making Sense Of Legislative Standing, Matthew I. Hall
Making Sense Of Legislative Standing, Matthew I. Hall
Scholarly Works
Legislative standing doctrine is neglected and under-theorized. There has always been a wide range of opinions on the Supreme Court about the proper contours of legislative standing doctrine and even about whether the Court should adjudicate disputes between the other two branches at all. Perhaps owing to these disagreements, the full Court has never articulated a clear vision of the doctrine. While the Court has managed to resolve some cases, it has not achieved the consensus necessary to provide a comprehensive and coherent account of critical doctrinal issues such as what type of injury can give rise to legislative standing …
Two-Time Presidents And The Vice-Presidency, Dan T. Coenen
Two-Time Presidents And The Vice-Presidency, Dan T. Coenen
Scholarly Works
Does the Constitution limit the ability of a twice-before-elected President to serve as Vice-President? This question, as it turns out, presents an intricate constitutional puzzle, the solution of which requires working through four separate sub-inquiries: Is a two-term President totally ineligible for the Vice-Presidency? Is such a person barred from election to the Vice-Presidency even if that person remains appointable to that office? Is a twice-before-elected President, even if properly placed in the Vice-Presidency, incapable of succeeding from that office to the Presidency? And even if such a succession can occur, must the resulting term of service as President expire …
The Death Of Deference And The Domestication Of Treaty Law, Harlan G. Cohen
The Death Of Deference And The Domestication Of Treaty Law, Harlan G. Cohen
Scholarly Works
How much deference do courts give to Executive branch views on treaty interpretation? The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States tells us that courts “will give great weight to an interpretation made by the executive branch,” and earlier empirical studies suggested that deference to Executive in such cases was robust. But is that still the case? The Supreme Court’s rejection of the Executive’s view in a series of high profile cases including Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina, and Bond v. United States should raise some doubts. This short article investigates, …
Who Executes The Executioner? Impeachment, Indictment And Other Alternatives To Assassination, Jay S. Bybee
Who Executes The Executioner? Impeachment, Indictment And Other Alternatives To Assassination, Jay S. Bybee
Scholarly Works
This article addresses whether the Constitution protects a sitting President from indictment. The text of the Constitution is not clear on this question as it might be, but it is clear enough. No court has ever addressed the question of the President’s amenability to criminal charges, although the courts have considered the related question of whether federal judges can be subjected to criminal charges. Those courts have answered that judges and other officials are subject to criminal prosecution while in office. Congress has implicitly approved this conclusion in its passage of the Ethics in Government Act with its provision for …
Advising The President: Separation Of Powers And The Federal Advisory Committee Act, Jay S. Bybee
Advising The President: Separation Of Powers And The Federal Advisory Committee Act, Jay S. Bybee
Scholarly Works
This Article examines the tensions between Congress, the judiciary, and the President over presidential use of advisory committees. It argues that courts, in attempting to avoid difficult constitutional questions, have misread the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”). Properly construed, FACA violates separation of powers by limiting the terms on which the President can acquire information from nongovernmental advisory committees.
The author argues that the President does have the power to consult with outside advisers, and that FACA unconstitutionally infringes upon that power. FACA fails to draw a distinction between congressionally created advisory committees and presidentially created advisory committees, and assumes …