Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

President/Executive Department Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Constitutional Law

PDF

Selected Works

Administrative law

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in President/Executive Department

The President’S Pen And The Bureaucrat’S Fiefdom, John C. Eastman May 2017

The President’S Pen And The Bureaucrat’S Fiefdom, John C. Eastman

John C. Eastman

Perhaps spurred by aggressive use of executive orders and “lawmaking” by administrative agencies by the last couple of presidential administrations, several Justices on the Supreme Court have recently expressed concern that the Court’s deference doctrines have undermined core separation of powers constitutional principles.  This article explores those Justice’s invitation to revisit those deference doctrines and some of the executive actions that have prompted the concern.


The Ordinary Remand Rule And The Judicial Toolbox For Agency Dialogue, Christopher J. Walker Jan 2014

The Ordinary Remand Rule And The Judicial Toolbox For Agency Dialogue, Christopher J. Walker

Christopher J. Walker

When a court concludes that an agency’s decision is erroneous, the ordinary rule is to remand to the agency to consider the issue anew (as opposed to the court deciding the issue itself). Despite that the Supreme Court first articulated this ordinary remand rule in the 1940s and has rearticulated it repeatedly over the years, little work has been done to understand how the rule works in practice, much less whether it promotes the separation-of-powers values that motivate the rule. This Article is the first to conduct such an investigation—focusing on judicial review of agency immigration adjudications and reviewing the …


The Senate And The Recess Appointments, David Arkush Dec 2012

The Senate And The Recess Appointments, David Arkush

David J. Arkush

This Essay offers a new perspective on the recess appointments controversy in Noel Canning v. NLRB. First, contrary to the dominant view, the case does not present a conflict between the President and the Senate. The Senate majority likely wished to authorize the President's recess appointments, and the majority is the relevant body for the purpose of establishing Senate intent. Second, the courts should defer to the Senate's wishes rather than define the term "recess" themselves.