National Security Law Commons^™

The National Security Consequences Of The Major Questions Doctrine, Ganesh Sitaraman, Timothy Meyer

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The rise of the major questions doctrine—the rule that says that in order to delegate to the executive branch the power to resolve a “question of ‘deep economic and political significance’ that is central to [a] statutory scheme,” Congress must do so expressly—threatens to unmake the modern executive’s authority over foreign affairs, especially in matters of national security and interstate conflict. In the twenty-first century, global conflicts increasingly involve economic warfare, rather than (or in addition to) the force of arms.

In the United States, the executive power to levy economic sanctions and engage in other forms of economic warfare …

The National Security Consequences Of The Major Questions Doctrine, Timothy Meyer, Ganesh Sitaraman

Faculty Scholarship

The rise of the major questions doctrine—the rule that says that in order to delegate to the executive branch the power to resolve a “question of ‘deep economic and political significance’ that is central to [a] statutory scheme,” Congress must do so expressly—threatens to unmake the modern executive’s authority over foreign affairs, especially in matters of national security and interstate conflict. In the twenty-first century, global conflicts increasingly involve economic warfare, rather than (or in addition to) the force of arms.

In the United States, the executive power to levy economic sanctions and engage in other forms of economic warfare …

Adding Bite To The Zone Of Twilight: Applying Kisor To Revitalize The Youngstown Tripartite, Zachary W. Singer

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

In the half century and more since Justice Jackson’s famous concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the fog surrounding acceptable executive power in national security and foreign affairs has only thickened. Today, whether presidents are responding to the challenges of an amorphous global war on terrorism or a global pandemic, they act against a backdrop of ambiguous constitutional and statutory authorization and shifting precedent. While Justice Jackson outlined zones of presidential power by tying that power to congressional acts, the Court subsequently watered down the test by looking to other factors, like legislative intent. At other …

War Powers: Congress, The President, And The Courts – A Model Casebook Section, Stephen M. Griffin, Matthew C. Waxman

Faculty Scholarship

This model casebook section is concerned with the constitutional law of war powers as developed by the executive and legislative branches, with a limited look at relevant statutes and federal court cases. It is intended for use in Constitutional Law I classes that cover separation of powers. It could also be used for courses in National Security Law or Foreign Relations Law, or for graduate courses in U.S. foreign policy. This is designed to be the reading for one to two classes, and it can supplement or replace standard casebook sections on war powers that are shorter and offer less …

Quieting The Court: Lessons From The Muslim-Ban Case, Avidan Cover

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court’s Muslim-ban decision in Trump v. Hawaii and the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court call into question the civil rights litigation enterprise insofar as it challenges U.S. government’s national security and immigration policies. Litigants and advocacy organizations should employ an array of strategies and tactics to avoid the Court’s rulings that almost uniformly defer to, and thus validate, the government’s national security and immigration practices.

This article maintains that The Muslim-Ban Case was a predictable outgrowth of the Supreme Court’s national security-immigration jurisprudence that champions executive power at the expense of marginalized groups, in particular …

Bureaucratic Resistance And The National Security State, Rebecca Ingber

Faculty Scholarship

Modern accounts of the national security state tend toward one of two opposing views of bureaucratic tensions within it: At one extreme, the executive branch bureaucracy is a shadowy “deep state,” unaccountable to the public or even to the elected President. On this account, bureaucratic obstacles to the President’s agenda are inherently suspect, even dangerous. At the other end, bureaucratic resistance to the President represents a necessary benevolent constraint on an otherwise imperial executive, the modern incarnation of the separation of powers, as the traditional checks on the President of the courts and Congress have fallen down on the job. …

Executive Power And National Security Power, Julian Davis Mortenson, Andrew Kent

Book Chapters

The constitutional text governing national security law is full of gaps, oversights, and omissions. In combination with the authorization principle -- which requires all federal actors to identify particularized authority for their actions -- these gaps have often presented an acute dilemma for Presidents charged with defending the nation. Focusing on three periods in American history, this chapter sketches the historical evolution of how the political branches have responded.

First, the early republic. During this period, presidents responded to the authorization dilemma by seeking highly particularized authorization from the two other constitutional branches of government. Throughout the era, presidents’ claims …

Excavating The Forgotten Suspension Clause, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

Sanctuary Networks And Integrative Enforcement, Ming Hsu Chen

Publications

My intended focus is on the widespread response--in cities, churches, campuses, and corporations that together comprise "sanctuary networks"--to the Trump Administration's Executive Order 13768 Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States as an instance of the changing relationship between federal, local, and private organizations in the regulation of immigration. After briefly covering the legal background of the Trump Interior E.O., the focus of the Article shifts to the institutional dynamics arising in communities. These institutional dynamics exemplify the beginnings of a reimagined immigration enforcement policy with a more integrative flavor.

Presidential War Powers As A Two-Level Dynamic: International Law, Domestic Law, And Practice-Based Legal Change, Curtis A. Bradley, Jean Galbraith

Faculty Scholarship

There is a rich literature on the circumstances under which the United Nations Charter or specific Security Council resolutions authorize nations to use force abroad, and there is a rich literature on the circumstances under which the U.S. Constitution and statutory law allows the President to use force abroad. These are largely separate areas of scholarship, addressing what are generally perceived to be two distinct levels of legal doctrine. This Article, by contrast, considers these two levels of doctrine together as they relate to the United States. In doing so, it makes three main contributions. First, it demonstrates striking parallels …

Surveillance, Secrecy, And The Search For Meaningful Accountability, Sudha Setty

Faculty Scholarship

One of the most intractable problems in the debate around maintaining the rule of law while combating the threat of terrorism is the question of secrecy and transparency. In peacetime, important tenets to the rule of law include transparency of the law, limits on government power, and consistency of the law as applied to individuals in the policy. Yet the post-9/11 decision-making by the Bush and Obama administrations is characterized with excessive secrecy that stymies most efforts to hold the government accountable for its abuses. Executive branch policy with regard to detention, interrogation, targeted killing and surveillance are kept secret, …

Country Report On Counterterrorism: United States Of America, Sudha Setty

Faculty Scholarship

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, led to profound changes in societal viewpoints, political agendas, and the legal authorization to combat terrorism. The United States continues to struggle with keeping its population safe while maintaining the principles of democracy and the rule of law essential to the nation’s character. The U.S. response to terrorism has been multifaceted and expansive, reflective of the U.S. role in global security; debate over these matters will continue for the foreseeable future.

This report, prepared for the American Society of Comparative Law, offers summary, analysis and critique of many aspects of counterterrorism law, including …

The National Security State: The End Of Separation Of Powers, Michael E. Tigar

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Samantar And Executive Power, Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

This essay examines Samantar v. Yousuf in the context of broader debate about the relationship between federal common law and executive power. Samantar represents simply the latest effort by the Executive Branch to literally shape the meaning of law through a process referred to in the literature as “executive lawmaking.” While traditional accounts of executive lawmaking typically have treated the idea as a singular concept, Samantar demonstrates the need to bifurcate the concept into at least two different categories: acts of executive lawmaking decoupled from pending litigation and acts of executive lawmaking taken expressly in response to litigation. As Samantar …

Responses To The Ten Questions, Charles J. Dunlap Jr.

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To The Ten Questions, Robert D. Sloane

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To The Ten Questions, John Cary Sims

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To The Ten Questions, Robert N. Strassfeld

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To The Ten Questions, Charles J. Dunlap Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Responses To The Ten Questions, Timothy Lynch

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To The Ten Questions, Richard L. Russell

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To The Ten Questions, Jeffrey Kahn

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To The Ten Questions, Robert Knowles

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To The Ten Questions, Mary Ellen O'Connell

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To The Ten Questions, Wayne Mccormack

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To The Ten Questions, Gregory S. Mcneal

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To The Ten Questions, Joshua L. Dratel

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To The Ten Questions, John T. Parry

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

De-Cloaking Torture: Boumediene And The Military Commissions Act, Alan W. Clarke

San Diego International Law Journal

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) marked the high tide and endgame for hiding torture. It's unraveling did more to uncover the Bush administration's secret interrogation practices than did the political change in Washington. International and domestic backlash against the government's embrace of harsh interrogation techniques, frequently rising to the level of torture, also played a role. However, the Supreme Court's decisions ending in Boumediene v. Bush played the decisive role. Boumediene, and the Supreme Court decisions that led up to it, made inevitable that which politics had left contingent and reversible. It also provided legal and political cover.

Legal Obligations: The Proper Role Of White House Lawyers, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

An opinion issued on Aug. 1, 2002, by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel held that the federal statute that makes it a crime to commit torture outside the United States should not be read to “apply to the President’s detention and interrogation of enemy combatants pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority.” The opinion further concluded that if the statute did criminalize interrogations ordered by the president, it was unconstitutional.

The memorandum, which has become known as the “torture memo,” figures prominently in the ongoing public debate about whether there should be …