President/Executive Department Commons^™

Common Law Executive Privilege(S), Jonathan Shaub

Indiana Law Journal

There are few Supreme Court cases that enjoy as much widespread support as the unanimous decision in United States v. Nixon. The recent pitched battles between Congress and the executive branch have made apparent the vast disagreement between the two branches over access to information. But that disagreement does not extend to Nixon, the unquestioned jurisprudential foundation for the doctrine of executive privilege. Closer inspection shows, however, that this foundation is not a stable one, but one constructed from unnecessary, ill-considered dicta.

As this Article demonstrates, Nixon conflated the constitutional question about one branch’s power vis-à-vis another branch with an …

War Courts: Fdr, National Security, And The War On Terrorism, Harvey Gee

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright, Cary Coglianese, Daniel E. Walters

Faculty Scholarship

“Chevron is overruled.” These three words surely captured more attention than any others in the U.S. Supreme Court’s thirty-five-page opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. For forty years, the Chevron doctrine had been virtually synonymous with administrative law. Now that the Court has taken a step that many scholars thought unfathomable even just a few years ago, speculation abounds about the possible downstream impacts of Loper Bright on both what agencies will be able to do in the future and how lower courts will respond when reviewing agency action. The vast majority of early expert commentaries suggest …

The Practice Of Executive Constitutionalism, Conor Clarke, Daniel Epps

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Executive Branch must inevitably interpret the Constitution. Although departmentalists and judicial supremacists disagree about the scope of the Executive’s constitutional authority, few believe the Constitution is only for the courts. But what are the practices through which the Executive Branch interprets the Constitution and translates those interpretations into concrete decisions? What is their history? And what, if anything, is distinctive about them? While a rich and growing literature has examined some aspects of these questions, scholars have not broadly canvased the most central tools by which the Executive Branch shapes and implements constitutional law, or considered what makes them …

Perfecting Our Submission? Mann And Trump, Ruffin And Roberts, Joseph S. Miller

Scholarly Works

Presidential power is vast, both under law and in practice. Who holds presidents accountable, and by what means? Courts wrestle with these intertwined questions of power and accountability. The majority opinion in the 2024 presidential immunity case, Trump v. United States, is eerily resonant, rhetorically, with a notorious judgment enhancing one person’s power over others by shielding that power utterly from criminal-law accountability. That judgment, from 1829, is Judge Thomas Ruffin’s infamous slavery-law opinion for the North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Mann. I juxtapose the two opinions, which share jarringly similar claims about the nature of power, rule, …

The Sword, The Purse, And The Pen: The Constitutional Conundrum Of Impoundment, William N. Chance

CMC Senior Theses

This Thesis explores the constitutional conundrum of executive impoundment, the practice by which the President of the United States withholds or delays the expenditure of funds appropriated by Congress. Although impoundment has deep historical roots dating back to the Constitution’s Framers, its modern use raises profound questions regarding our separation of powers. This Thesis establishes a functional framework that distinguishes between “routine” impoundments, which promote administrative efficiency, and “policy” impoundments, which may undermine congressional intent. Furthermore, after tracing the development of impoundment from the early Republic through the Nixon Administration and the passage of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, …

Lessons Learned From The Trump Rule Of Law Stress Test: Beware Bad Faith Actors, Brian Z. Tamanaha

Scholarship@WashULaw

The second Trump Administration has engaged in a vast swath of actions that press against the outer boundaries of legality. These actions provide a unique opportunity to identify potential vulnerabilities and expose how the rule of law can be undermined. While I will elucidate well-known points along the way, my primary aim is to bring out aspects of the rule of law that usually go unnoticed or under the radar. After setting out basic aspects of the rule of law, I cover three topics: 1) adhering to the truth, 2) pretextual arguments, and 3) flooding the field with actions and …

Separation-Of-Powers Lochnerism, Andrea Scoseria Katz

Scholarship@WashULaw

One hundred and twenty years ago, the Supreme Court handed down one of the single most notorious opinions ever rendered, striking down a New York labor law for violating a right to contract found nowhere in the text of the Constitution. The era of Lochner v. NY (1905) is well past us, but not the judicial impulses that gave rise to the case. With a new champion in the Roberts Court, Lochnerism is alive and well, deployed in a new context to redefine the relationships between the President, Congress, federal agencies, and the courts. Bringing together two lines of case-law-on …

Brief In Support Of Respondents As Amici Curiae, Donald J. Trump, President Of The United States, Et Al. V. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, Et. Al, No. 25-332, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Jonathan Gienapp

Scholarship@WashULaw

In the years since this Court’s decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), legal historians—including originalists—have unearthed a rich body of evidence challenging the conventional wisdom concerning the scope of the President’s removal powers at the Founding. Revisiting not only the Framers’ intellectual influences, but also their driving philosophical concerns and political incentives, this scholarship explains that removal authority was not understood to be vested exclusively in the President as a matter of settled constitutional law, but rather was permissibly exercised by various actors in various ways, intentionally not settled by the …

Disagreement And Historical Argument Or How Not To Think About Removal, Andrea Scoseria Katz, Noah A. Rosenblum, Jane Manners

Scholarship@WashULaw

Scholars have debated the reach of the President’s power to remove government officers for over one hundred years. This old fight is now suddenly urgent as President Trump asserts far-reaching powers to control the federal bureaucracy and the Supreme Court transforms Unitary Executive Theory into caselaw. Yet the scholarly case for an indefeasible presidential removal power has never been weaker.

This Essay continues an ongoing conversation about how to read some critical early republic evidence about removal. It briefly recapitulates the stakes of the disagreement before offering in-depth analyses of developments in Pennsylvania removal practice, including a reading of the …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

Voting Matters: Materiality Considerations And The Shareholder Vote, Renee M. Jones

Seattle University Law Review

For the shareholder franchise to have meaning, shareholders must have access to relevant information to inform their voting decisions. The securities laws’ disclosure requirements play an essential role in informing the shareholder vote.

This Essay focuses on the question of the materiality of information in the context of shareholder voting. It addresses the question of whether ESG-related information is material, positioning the materiality inquiry within the context of shareholders’ voting decisions. It explores the definition of materiality with a focus on the “reasonable investor” concept embedded within the definition. The Essay argues that the implicit expectations of many commentators that …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

Understanding The Big Three’S Wavering Support Of Environmental And Social Shareholder Proposals, Jeff Schwartz, Jefferson Jensen

Seattle University Law Review

Because of their substantial equity portfolios, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street (the Big 3) are central players in corporate governance. It is, therefore, critical to understand how they vote. One puzzle is that their support for shareholder proposals on environmental and social matters appears to waiver. In 2020, for instance, BlackRock supported 11.1% of environmental proposals at S&P 500 firms. In 2021, it seemingly reversed course, supporting 55.2%. It then flipped again, supporting 32.1% in 2022. Such statistics suggest that the Big 3 are constantly changing their views on these topics. This Article seeks to better understand whether this is …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

Posteriores Priores: An Unconstitutional Congressional Role In Treaty Termination, Donna D. Mckeage

Maine Law Review

The Supreme Court recently decided a case involving an apparent conflict between a treaty provision and a subsequent act of Congress. A Japanese subsidiary corporation, Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc., claimed a provision of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation of 1953 between the United States and Japan exempted it from the prohibition against discrimination embodied in title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court did not reach this issue because it found Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. to be a United States corporation and unable, therefore, to invoke the provisions of the treaty. The issue raised in …

Venality: A Strangely Practical History Of Unremovable Offices And Limited Executive Power, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Notre Dame Law Review

The Roberts Court has asserted that Article II’s “executive power” implied an “indefeasible” or unconditional presidential removal power. In response to counterevidence from the Founding era, unitary executive theorists have claimed a “British Backdrop” of a general removal power under the English Crown and European “executive power.” These assumptions are incorrect.

This Article shows that many powerful executive officers through the late eighteenth century, especially high English Treasury offices and even “department heads” in the cabinet, were unremovable. A long common law tradition protected many English offices as freehold property rights. Moreover, this Article explains why it was widely understood …

The Good Officer: President Trump, General Milley, And The “Necessity” Of Constitutional Fidelity, John C. Dehn

Brooklyn Law Review

Actions taken by General Mark Milley, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to prevent an abuse of presidential power during the waning days of the Trump administration prompted a range of reactions and concerns. This Article leverages these events to explore the circumstances under which a member of the armed forces or senior executive branch official may have a moral or legal right or duty to disobey presidential orders or authorizations that entail a clear violation of the Constitution or federal laws, or that abuse lawful authorities in ways that would subvert the Constitution’s text or vital …

Forgive And Forget: Honoring Full And Unconditional Pardons, Philip P. Houle

Maine Law Review

With few words, the Great Bard summarized the popular understanding of full and unconditional pardons as unrestrained acts of mercy which approximate, as best as humans can, the divine ability to forgive and forget. Perhaps in light of that sentiment, the common law held that a royal pardon blotted out any guilt or infamy resulting from commission of a crime, as well as the legal existence of the conviction itself. Following much discussion of the issue, the Supreme Court adopted the forgive-and-forget rule in a series of decisions following the Civil War. Yet, despite clear common law and Supreme Court …

Stand-Ins: Causes And Consequences Of Temporary Leadership, Anne Joseph O’Connell

BYU Law Review

Hafen Lecture, BYU Law School, September 13, 2023.

“No Superior But God”: History, Post Presidential Immunity, And The Intent Of The Framers, Trace M. Maddox

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

This essay is directly responsive to one of the most pressing issues currently before the courts of the United States: the question of whether former Presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for acts they committed in office. Building upon the recent ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in United States v. Trump, 91 F.4th 1173 (D.C. Cir. 2024) this essay argues that the clear answer to that question is a resounding “no”.

Former President Trump, who has now appealed the D.C. Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court, contends that post-presidential criminal immunity is …

Implied Consent In Administrative Adjudication, Grace Moore

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Article III of the Constitution mandates that judges exercising the federal judicial power receive life tenure and that their pay not be diminished. Nonetheless, certain forms of adjudication have always taken place outside of Article III—in state courts, military tribunals, territorial courts, and administrative tribunals. Administrative law judges, employed by various federal administrative agencies, decide thousands of cases each year. A vast majority of the cases they decide deal with public rights, which generally include claims involving federal statutory rights or cases in which the federal government is a party. With litigant consent, however, the Supreme Court has upheld administrative …

Navigating Section Three From Griffin’S Case To The Case Of Couy Griffin: Who Should Decide Its Longstanding Questions?, Austin Carpenter

BYU Law Review

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment was a long-dormant constitutional provision enacted to bar former Confederates from political office. Then, as a result of the shocking political violence at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, Section Three suddenly found itself resurrected into the national political discussion. Scholars and courts are now grappling with Section Three’s original meaning and modern application to those politicians and office holders whose conduct led to the events on January 6 — events that interrupted the peaceful transfer of power and left a stain on the United States’ democratic tradition.

Yet, use of Section …

Partisanship Creep, Katherine Shaw

Northwestern University Law Review

It was once well settled and uncontroversial—reflected in legislative enactments, Executive Branch practice, judicial doctrine, and the broader constitutional culture—that the Constitution imposed limits on government partisanship. This principle was one instantiation of a broader set of rule of law principles: that law is not merely an instrument of political power; that government resources should not be used to further partisan interests, or to damage partisan adversaries.

For at least a century, each branch of the federal government has participated in the development and articulation of this nonpartisanship principle. In the legislative realm, federal statutes beginning with the 1883 Pendleton …

Searching Govinfo.Gov/, Bert Chapman

Libraries Faculty and Staff Presentations

This U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) database provides access to information legal, legislative, and regulatory information produced on multiple subjects by the U.S. Government. Content includes congressional bills, congressional committee hearings and prints (studies), reports on legislation, the text of laws, regulations, and executive orders and multiple U.S. Government information resources covering subjects from accounting to zoology.

Henderson And The Objective Observer Standard: The Future Of Race-Conscious Standards Post-Students For Fair Admissions, Gabriela Dionisio

Seattle University Law Review

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, which struck down race-conscious admissions policies. Within just a year after its ruling, Students for Fair Admissions has already had a sweeping impact, reaching beyond higher education. Although the Supreme Court did not indicate whether Students for Fair Admissions applies to sectors beyond higher education, law firms, and other employers have already modified their diversity policies and initiatives, erasing race and company diversity considerations. Given those dramatic changes, there is growing fear that Students for Fair Admissions …

Same Crime, Different Time: Sentencing Disparities In The Deep South & A Path Forward Under The Fourteenth Amendment, Hailey M. Donovan

Seattle University Law Review

The United States has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. The American obsession with crime and punishment can be tracked over the last half-century, as the nation’s incarceration rate has risen astronomically. Since 1970, the number of incarcerated people in the United States has increased more than sevenfold to over 2.3 million, outpacing both crime and population growth considerably. While the rise itself is undoubtedly bleak, a more troubling truth lies just below the surface. Not all states contribute equally to American mass incarceration. Rather, states have vastly different incarceration rates. Unlike at the federal level, …

Public Primacy In Corporate Law, Dorothy S. Lund

Seattle University Law Review

This Article explores the malleability of agency theory by showing that it could be used to justify a “public primacy” standard for corporate law that would direct fiduciaries to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of the public. Employing agency theory to describe the relationship between corporate management and the broader public sheds light on aspects of firm behavior, as well as the nature of state contracting with corporations. It also provides a lodestar for a possible future evolution of corporate law and governance: minimize the agency costs created by the divergence of interests between management and …

Robo-Voting: Does Delegated Proxy Voting Pose A Challenge For Shareholder Democracy?, John Matsusaka, Chong Shu

Seattle University Law Review

Robo-voting is the practice by an investment fund of mechanically voting in corporate elections according to the advice of its proxy advisor— in effect fully delegating its voting decision to its advisor. We examined over 65 million votes cast during the period 2008–2021 by 14,582 mutual funds to describe and quantify the prevalence of robo-voting. Overall, 33% of mutual funds robo-voted in 2021: 22% with ISS, 4% with Glass Lewis, and six percent with the recommendations of the issuer’s management. The fraction of funds that robo-voted increased until around 2013 and then stabilized at the current level. Despite the sizable …

The Limits Of Corporate Governance, Cathy Hwang, Emily Winston

Seattle University Law Review

What is the purpose of the corporation? For decades, the answer was clear: to put shareholders’ interests first. In many cases, this theory of shareholder primacy also became synonymous with the imperative to maximize shareholder wealth. In the world where shareholder primacy was a north star, courts, scholars, and policymakers had relatively little to fight about: most debates were minor skirmishes about exactly how to maximize shareholder wealth.

Part I of this Essay discusses the shortcomings of shareholder primacy and stakeholder governance, arguing that neither of these modes of governance provides an adequate framework for incentivizing corporations to do good. …