Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
President/Executive Department Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Seattle University School of Law (191)
- University of Michigan Law School (24)
- Roger Williams University (21)
- University of Colorado Law School (18)
- Fordham Law School (11)
-
- New York Law School (11)
- William & Mary Law School (11)
- Washington University in St. Louis (10)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (9)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (8)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (7)
- Pepperdine University (6)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (6)
- American University Washington College of Law (5)
- Boston University School of Law (5)
- Georgetown University Law Center (5)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (4)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (4)
- Notre Dame Law School (4)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (4)
- University of Richmond (4)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (4)
- Cleveland State University (3)
- Liberty University (3)
- Brigham Young University Law School (2)
- Brooklyn Law School (2)
- Columbia Law School (2)
- Lewis & Clark Law School (2)
- Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School (2)
- Loyola University Chicago, School of Law (2)
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (39)
- Constitution (23)
- Separation of powers (23)
- Congress (22)
- United States Supreme Court (21)
-
- Federalism (15)
- Law (14)
- Judicial review (13)
- President (13)
- Constitutional Law (12)
- Immigration (11)
- Courts (10)
- Supreme Court of the United States (9)
- Travel Ban (9)
- Administrative law (8)
- Constitutional law (8)
- Democracy (8)
- Executive Power (8)
- Executive power (8)
- Trump (8)
- Donald Trump (7)
- Executive branch (7)
- Regulation (7)
- SFFA (7)
- Administrative Law (6)
- Administrative Procedure Act (6)
- Affirmative Action (6)
- ESG (6)
- Judges (6)
- Politics (6)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Seattle University Law Review (191)
- Faculty Scholarship (19)
- Publications (18)
- Law Faculty Scholarship (15)
- Michigan Law Review (12)
-
- Scholarship@WashULaw (10)
- Articles (8)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (7)
- Fordham Law Review (6)
- Pepperdine Law Review (6)
- Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - ) (6)
- NYLS Law Review (5)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (4)
- Northwestern University Law Review (4)
- Supreme Court Preview (4)
- University of Richmond Law Review (4)
- Cardozo Law Review (3)
- Catholic University Law Review (3)
- Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum (3)
- Other Publications (3)
- Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals (3)
- William & Mary Law Review (3)
- All Faculty Scholarship (2)
- Books (2)
- Indiana Law Journal (2)
- Journal Articles (2)
- Lewis & Clark Law Review (2)
- Life of the Law School (1993- ) (2)
- Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (2)
- Public Land & Resources Law Review (2)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 361 - 390 of 422
Full-Text Articles in President/Executive Department
Inside Agency Preemption, Catherine M. Sharkey
Inside Agency Preemption, Catherine M. Sharkey
Michigan Law Review
A subtle shift has taken place in the mechanics of preemption, the doctrine that determines when federal law displaces state law. In the past, Congress was the leading actor, and courts and commentators focused almost exclusively on the precise wording of its statutory directives as a clue to its intent to displace state law. Federal agencies were, if not ignored, certainly no more than supporting players. But the twenty-first century has witnessed a role reversal. Federal agencies now play the dominant role in statutory interpretation. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the ascendancy of federal agencies in preemption disputes-an ascendancy …
Fdr And Chief Justice Hughes: The President, The Supreme Court, And The Epic Battle Over The New Deal, James F. Simon
Fdr And Chief Justice Hughes: The President, The Supreme Court, And The Epic Battle Over The New Deal, James F. Simon
Books
By the author of acclaimed books on the bitter clashes between Jefferson and Chief Justice Marshall on the shaping of the nation’s constitutional future, and between Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney over slavery, secession, and the presidential war powers. Roosevelt and Chief Justice Hughes's fight over the New Deal was the most critical struggle between an American president and a chief justice in the twentieth century.
The confrontation threatened the New Deal in the middle of the nation’s worst depression. The activist president bombarded the Democratic Congress with a fusillade of legislative remedies that shut down insolvent banks, regulated stocks, …
After Deference: Formalizing The Judicial Power For Foreign Relations Law, Deborah Pearlstein
After Deference: Formalizing The Judicial Power For Foreign Relations Law, Deborah Pearlstein
Articles
How much deference should courts afford executive branch interpretations of statutes and treaties? The question that has long engaged foreign relations scholars has found new salience as it has become apparent in recent years that the Supreme Court will neither abstain nor reliably defer to presidential judgment even in cases implicating national security. As the courts grapple with the scope of detention authority granted by Congress’ 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or the limits on that authority under the Geneva Conventions, a number of scholars have embraced administrative law deference doctrines such as that in Chevron v. …
An Unintended Casualty Of The War On Terror, Aya Gruber
An Unintended Casualty Of The War On Terror, Aya Gruber
Publications
As the dust of the Bush administration's war on terror settles, casualties are starting to appear on the legal battlefield. The United States' human rights reputation and the Supreme Court's international influence lay wounded in the wake of U.S. policies that flouted international law by advocating torture, suborning indefinite detention, and erecting irregular tribunals. Through declining citation, the courts of the world are telling the Supreme Court that if it does not respect international and foreign law, international and foreign courts will not respect it. Some might object that the Supreme Court should not be lumped with the Bush administration …
Choosing Justices: How Presidents Decide, Joel K. Goldstein
Choosing Justices: How Presidents Decide, Joel K. Goldstein
All Faculty Scholarship
Presidents play the critical role in determining who will serve as justices on the Supreme Court and their decisions inevitably influence constitutional doctrine and judicial behavior long after their terms have ended. Notwithstanding the impact of these selections, scholars have focused relatively little attention on how presidents decide who to nominate. This article contributes to the literature in the area by advancing three arguments. First, it adopts an intermediate course between the works which tend to treat the subject historically without identifying recurring patterns and those which try to reduce the process to empirical formulas which inevitably obscure considerations shaping …
Taking Cues From Congress: Judicial Review, Congressional Authorization, And The Expansion Of Presidential Power, David H. Moore
Taking Cues From Congress: Judicial Review, Congressional Authorization, And The Expansion Of Presidential Power, David H. Moore
Faculty Scholarship
In evaluating whether presidential acts are constitutional, the Supreme Court often takes its cues from Congress. Under the Court's two most prominent approaches for gauging presidential power-Justice Jackson's tripartite framework and the historical gloss on executive power-congressional approval of presidential conduct produces a finding of constitutionality. Yet courts and commentators have failed to recognize that congressional authorization may result from a failure of checks and balances. Congress may transfer power to the President against institutional interest for a variety of reasons. This key insight calls into question the Court's reflexive reliance on congressional authorization. Through this reliance, the Court overlooks …
Worcester V. Georgia: A Breakdown In The Separation Of Powers, Matthew L. Sundquist
Worcester V. Georgia: A Breakdown In The Separation Of Powers, Matthew L. Sundquist
American Indian Law Review
No abstract provided.
Constitutional Expectations, Richard A. Primus
Constitutional Expectations, Richard A. Primus
Articles
The inauguration of Barack Obama was marred by one of the smallest constitutional crises in American history. As we all remember, the President did not quite recite his oath as it appears in the Constitution. The error bothered enough people that the White House redid the ceremony a day later, taking care to get the constitutional text exactly right. Or that, at least, is what everyone thinks happened. What actually happened is more interesting. The second time through, the President again departed from the Constitution's text. But the second time, nobody minded. Or even noticed. In that unremarked feature of …
The Courts Under President Obama, Scott A. Moss
Dear President Bush: Leaving A Legacy On The Federal Bench, Carl Tobias
Dear President Bush: Leaving A Legacy On The Federal Bench, Carl Tobias
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
What Lurks Beneath: Nsa Surveillance And Executive Power Symposium: The Role Of The President In The Twenty-First Century, Gary S. Lawson
What Lurks Beneath: Nsa Surveillance And Executive Power Symposium: The Role Of The President In The Twenty-First Century, Gary S. Lawson
Faculty Scholarship
It is not surprising that, nearly two and a quarter centuries after ratification of the Federal Constitution, people are still actively arguing about the extent of the American President's powers.' The concept of executive power is notoriously murky,2 so disputes about its scope and character are virtually unavoidable. It is, however, at least a tad surprising that, nearly two and a quarter centuries after ratification of the Federal Constitution, people are still arguing about the constitutional sources of presidential power. 3 It is one thing to disagree about how far the President's power extends, but it is quite another thing …
The Accounting: Habeas Corpus And Enemy Combatants, Emily Calhoun
The Accounting: Habeas Corpus And Enemy Combatants, Emily Calhoun
Publications
The judiciary should impose a heavy burden of justification on the executive when a habeas petitioner challenges the accuracy of facts on which an enemy combatant designation rests. A heavy burden of justification will ensure that the essential institutional purposes of the writ--and legitimate, separated-powers government--are preserved, even during times of national exigency. The institutional purposes of the writ argue for robust judicial review rather than deference to the executive. Moreover, the procedural flexibility traditionally associated with the writ gives the judiciary the tools to ensure that a heavy burden of justification can be imposed.
The Story Of The Steel Seizure Case, Patricia L. Bellia
The Story Of The Steel Seizure Case, Patricia L. Bellia
Book Chapters
In 1952, during the Korean War, President Truman seized control of American steel mills to prevent a strike that threatened the war effort. This action, prompted by a labor dispute between steelworkers and operators, led to a landmark Supreme Court case, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. The Court ultimately ruled that the President lacked the authority to seize the steel mills without explicit congressional authorization, establishing limits on presidential power.
Reconsidering Gobitis: An Exercise In Presidential Leadership, Robert Tsai
Reconsidering Gobitis: An Exercise In Presidential Leadership, Robert Tsai
Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals
In June of 1940, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Minersville School District v. Gobitis that the First Amendment posed no barrier to the punishment of two school age Jehovah's Witnesses who refused to pay homage to the American flag. Three years later, the Justices reversed themselves in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. This sudden change has prompted a host of explanations. Some observers have stressed changes in judicial personnel in the intervening years; others have pointed to the wax and wane of general anxieties over the war; still others have emphasized the sympathy-inspiring acts of …
The California Greenhouse Gas Waiver Decision And Agency Interpretation: A Response To Galle And Seidenfeld, Nina A. Mendelson
The California Greenhouse Gas Waiver Decision And Agency Interpretation: A Response To Galle And Seidenfeld, Nina A. Mendelson
Articles
Professors Brian Galle and Mark Seidenfeld add some important strands to the debate on agency preemption, particularly in their detailed documentation of the potential advantages agencies may possess in deliberating on preemption compared with Congress and the courts. As they note, the quality of agency deliberation matters to two different debates. First, should an agency interpretation of statutory language to preempt state law receive Chevron deference in the courts, as other agency interpretations may, or should some lesser form of deference be given? Second, should a general statutory authorization to an agency to administer a program and to issue rules …
Section 1: The Executive Power & The War On Terror, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 1: The Executive Power & The War On Terror, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Ordinary Powers In Extraordinary Times: Common Sense In Times Of Crisis, Gary S. Lawson
Ordinary Powers In Extraordinary Times: Common Sense In Times Of Crisis, Gary S. Lawson
Faculty Scholarship
The U.S. Constitution was written, debated, ratified, and implemented in the shadow of crisis. The country was birthed in war. In the aftermath of ratification, opponents of the Constitution could have precipitated a civil war that would have jeopardized the survival of the fledgling national government. I Throughout the founding era, any number of European powers were perceived to pose a serious threat of invasion. 2 Well into the 1800s, especially in certain northeastern states, substantial homegrown support for realignment with England persisted; the possibility of an internal rebellion in those areas was quite real.3 Individuals interested more in power …
The Incompatibility Principle, Harold H. Bruff
Lincoln And Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, And The President's War Powers, James F. Simon
Lincoln And Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, And The President's War Powers, James F. Simon
Books
The clashes between President Abraham Lincoln and Chief Justice Roger B. Taney over slavery, secession, and the president's constitutional war powers went to the heart of Lincoln's presidency. James Simon, author of the acclaimed What Kind of Nation, brings to vivid life the passionate struggle during the worst crisis in the nation's history, the Civil War. The issues that underlaid that crisis -- race, states' rights, and the president's wartime authority -- resonate today in the nation's political debate.
In The Service Of Secrets: The U.S. Supreme Court Revisits Totten, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 475 (2006), Douglas Kash, Matthew Indrisano
In The Service Of Secrets: The U.S. Supreme Court Revisits Totten, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 475 (2006), Douglas Kash, Matthew Indrisano
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
The ‘Rule Of Law’ And The Military Commission, Stephen Ellmann
The ‘Rule Of Law’ And The Military Commission, Stephen Ellmann
Articles & Chapters
No abstract provided.
Federal Judicial Selection: The First Decade, Maeva Marcus
Federal Judicial Selection: The First Decade, Maeva Marcus
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Great Writ Of Incoherence: An Analysis Of Supreme Court's Rulings On "Enemy Combatants", Gregory Dolin
The Great Writ Of Incoherence: An Analysis Of Supreme Court's Rulings On "Enemy Combatants", Gregory Dolin
All Faculty Scholarship
On June 28, 2004, the United States Supreme Court released its much awaited decisions in the cases posing a challenge to the Executive's self-professed authority to detain and indefinitely hold individuals designated as "enemy combatants." The cases arose from the "war on terrorism" that was launched after the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. When each decision is looked at individually, the result seems to make sense and, given the outcome (affording detainees rights of judicial review), feels good. Yet when these decisions are looked at collectively, it is hard to believe that they were issued by …
Supreme Court To Decide Jurisdiction Over Guantanamo Detainees, John Anderson
Supreme Court To Decide Jurisdiction Over Guantanamo Detainees, John Anderson
Public Interest Law Reporter
No abstract provided.
Executive And Judicial Overreaction In The Guantanamo Cases, Neal K. Katyal
Executive And Judicial Overreaction In The Guantanamo Cases, Neal K. Katyal
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The U.S. Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush and Al-Odah v. United States held that detainees at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their detentions via writs of habeas corpus. Justice Stevens' majority opinion held that "the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the Executive's potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing." This holding is potentially unbounded, perhaps enabling someone detained at Kandahar or even Diego Garcia to challenge his detention via the great writ. It appears to be a striking break from the 1950 Johnson v. Eisentrager decision, which strongly intimated that …
The Irrepressible Myth Of Marbury, Michael Stokes Paulsen
The Irrepressible Myth Of Marbury, Michael Stokes Paulsen
Michigan Law Review
Nearly all of American constitutional law today rests on a myth. The myth, presented as standard history both in junior high civics texts and in advanced law school courses on constitutional law, runs something like this: A long, long time ago - 1803, if the storyteller is trying to be precise - in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court of the United States created the doctrine of "judicial review." Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to decide the meaning of the Constitution and to strike down laws that the Court finds unconstitutional. As …
Foreign Affairs: Presidential Initiative And Congressional Control, David P. Currie
Foreign Affairs: Presidential Initiative And Congressional Control, David P. Currie
Michigan Law Review
Jefferson Powell is one of our foremost scholars of constitutional history. He is particularly adept at bringing extrajudicial sources to bear on constitutional issues. Owing perhaps in part to his extensive service in the Department of Justice, he has a special facility for the use of executive materials; he is surely our leading academic expert on executive interpretation of the Constitution. In his latest book Professor Powell applies his enviable skills to the recurring, fundamental, and controversial question of the division of authority between the President and Congress in the realm of foreign affairs. As is always the case when …
Who Was William Marbury?, David F. Forte
Who Was William Marbury?, David F. Forte
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
Of all the disappointed office seekers in American history, only William Marbury has been so honored as to have his portrait hung in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court alongside that of James Madison. The two titular protagonists to the Marbury v. Madison dispute had no idea that their original contretemps would ever find its way to litigation, let alone eventual mythic significance as the foundation stone of judicial review.
Laws As Treaties?: The Constitutionality Of Congressional-Executive Agreements, John C. Yoo
Laws As Treaties?: The Constitutionality Of Congressional-Executive Agreements, John C. Yoo
Michigan Law Review
Only twice in the last century, in 1919 with the Treaty of Versailles, and two years ago with the comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, has the Senate rejected a significant treaty sought by the President. In both cases, the international agreement received support from a majority of the Senators, but failed to reach the two-thirds supermajority required by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution. The failure of the Versailles Treaty resulted in a shattering defeat for President Wilson's vision of a new world order, based on collective security and led by the United States. Rejection of the Test-Ban Treaty amounted …
Choosing Justices: A Political Appointments Process And The Wages Of Judicial Supremacy, John C. Yoo
Choosing Justices: A Political Appointments Process And The Wages Of Judicial Supremacy, John C. Yoo
Michigan Law Review
William H. Rehnquist is not going to be Chief Justice forever - much to the chagrin of Republicans, no doubt. In the last century, Supreme Court Justices have retired, on average, at the age of seventy-one after approximately fourteen years on the bench. By the end of the term of the President we elect this November, Chief Justice Rehnquist will have served on the Supreme Court for thirty-two years and reached the age of eighty. The law of averages suggests that Chief Justice Rehnquist is likely to retire in the next presidential term. In addition to replacing Chief Justice Rehnquist, …