President/Executive Department Commons^™

"Because The President Said So:" Agency Reason Giving And Presidential Statements Of Will, Nina A. Mendelson

Articles

Reason giving has long been understood to legitimate administrative agency actions by assuring legal, nonarbitrary, stable, and well-considered decisions. It is core to the Administrative Procedure Act's process and judicial review provisions. But the obligation to give reasons is receiving a challenge from the political accountability side, as executive orders skyrocket and the Supreme Court moves towards unitary executive theory in decisions such as Trump v. Slaughter and Seila Law v. CFPB. In striking down independent agencies under Article II, the Court has emphasized that political accountability of agencies to the President is critical. Both the President and executive agencies …

Jurisdictional Waters, Jamison E. Colburn

Michigan Law Review

A review of Waters of the United States: POTUS, SCOTUS, WOTUS, and the Politics of a National Resource. By Royal C. Gardner.

The President And The Power Grid, Alexandra B. Klass, Dave Owen

Michigan Law Review Online

There is a sharp discontinuity between the second Trump Administration’s electricity policies and those of previous presidential administrations. President Trump has directed the Department of Energy to use statutory authority designed for wartime conditions and sudden emergencies to prevent electric utilities from retiring aging coal plants. In doing so, he has elevated the president’s role in electric-grid governance and reduced the primacy of the expert regulatory agency—the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission—that Congress authorized to govern electricity markets and grid reliability.

This Essay places these actions in historical context. It recounts the executive branch’s role in electricity policy during the first …

Legalistic Noncompliance, Daniel Deacon, Leah Litman

Articles

Will the executive branch comply with court orders? That question has garnered a considerable amount of attention over the first few months of the second Trump administration. But what does it mean to comply? And what if a form of noncompliance is already occurring?

This Article documents an emerging practice that has dominated the second Trump administration's approach to unfavorable court rulings, a practice this Article calls legalistic noncompliance. Legalistic noncompliance occurs when the administration uses the language of the law as cover to claim that it is complying with court orders when in fact it is not. Drawing …

The Crisis Of Appropriations Law, Samuel R. Bagenstos

Articles

Appropriations law is a unique body of federal law.  Appropriations law imposes its own somewhat baroque set of statutory interpretation principles, approves of very broad delegations to the Executive Branch without meaningful limiting principles, and is often exempt from judicial review.  But perhaps that is all about to change.  Donald Trump’s historically aggressive challenge to Congress’s power of the purse has spurred an unusually large volume of exceptionally high-stakes appropriations law litigation. 

The potential implications go beyond the high-profile issues such as enforcement of the Impoundment Control Act.  In general, the unusual features of appropriations law are built on a …

Trump V. Slaughter: Brief Of Independent Agency Board Members And Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, Samuel Bagenstos

Appellate Briefs

Amici are removed board members from independent federal agencies and scholars whose work includes the study of independent agencies and the separation of powers between the President and Congress. Amici advance the view that there are federal agencies whose responsibility for protecting the safety and stability of the national infrastructure or ensuring the structural integrity of government necessitates their independence. Significant negative consequences would likely follow if these agencies were to lose their independence and their work were to become politicized.

All The President's Men: Congressional Appointment Restrictions At The Founding, Nicholas Holmes, Eric Walker

Michigan Law Review

The appointment power is exercised through a unique unicameral process. The Founders emphasized its distinctiveness from our system’s general bicameral legislative process, yet the power has largely been overlooked by scholars and jurists. This Note reveals that appointment discretion is the crucial, but understudied, flipside of the removal-power coin and is essential for presidential administration. Constitutional text, structure, and history indicate that there is a line beyond which congressional restrictions on who is eligible to hold federal office exceed Congress’s delegated powers and infringe on the president’s nomination and appointment power under Article II. The conventional wisdom on this line, …

Jenner & Block Llp V. Doj: Brief Of Amici Curiae 676 Law Professors In Support Of Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment And For Declaratory And Permanent Injunctive Relief, Nicholas C. Howson, Leah Litman, Kyle D. Logue, Gabriel S. Mendlow, Leonard Niehoff, Richard Primus, Rebecca Scott

Appellate Briefs

Amici 676 law professors submit this brief in support of Plaintiff Jenner & Block’s Motion for Summary Judgment and for Declaratory and Permanent Injunctive Relief (the “Motion”) to emphasize the threat that the President’s Executive Order (the “Order”) presents to the independence and integrity of the legal profession, the rights of clients to seek redress in the courts, and, by extension, the rule of law. As experts in constitutional law, legal ethics, and the history of the legal profession, among other fields, we have a significant interest in ensuring that the principles of free speech, freedom of association, the right …

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

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

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 …

Trump V. United States And The Half-Originalist Presidency, Christine Kexel Chabot

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. United States has been criticized for its ahistorical approach to presidential immunity. This Essay offers the first account of the historical mismatch between the Trump Court’s decision to immunize presidential removal power and Founding era conceptions of the presidency. Unlike the presumptive immunity that the Court recognized for most other official presidential acts, the immunity afforded for presidential removal power is absolute. The Court ruled that the President’s “unrestricted power of removal” can never be regulated by Congress or considered as evidence of wrongdoing, even when the President threatens removal to effectuate …

The Misuse Of Ratification-Era Sources By Unitary Executive Theorists, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This symposium essay suggests that, given an ostensibly originalist Supreme Court, the future depends on getting the past right. The unitary executive theory is approaching its political and doctrinal zenith in 2025, at the very moment it is approaching an evidentiary crisis. This essay details that crisis: a subset of misuses and misrepresentations of sources in the unitary executive scholarship. This subset focuses on serious misrepresentations of the Ratifications debates.

The Ratification debates appropriately have become the primary source of evidence for original public meaning, the dominant theory of originalism. The Ratification debates have always been a significant problem for …

Saving Agency Adjudication, Aaron L. Nielson, Christopher J. Walker, Melissa F. Wasserman

Articles

When discussing the federal judiciary, commentators typically fixate on the 800 or so “Article III” judges who are nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and enjoy life tenure and salary protection. Yet most federal adjudication does not take place in federal courthouses at all. Instead, it occurs in nondescript hearing rooms in administrative agencies—if not telephonically. Indeed, the more than 12,000 agency adjudicators scattered across the federal government collectively issue millions of decisions per year on subjects ranging from Social Security and veterans benefits to immigration and patent rights. In recent years, however, scholars and agency adjudicators have …

Introduction: The Future Of Agency Independence Symposium Christopher J. Walker, Christopher J. Walker

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

On the Friday after the election last November, the student editors and I convened scholars from across the country at the University of Michigan Law School to discuss the future of agency independence. The goal was to center our discussion on the traditional unitary executive debate and then look beyond statutory restrictions on the President’s removal power to explore other contours of agency independence in modern regulatory governance. Those included the role of scientific expertise and politics in agency decisionmaking, the decisional independence of agency adjudicators, and the importance of a professionalized civil service. When we planned the symposium, we …

A Perfect Storm: Executive Orders And Tax Law, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, J.J. Wang

Law & Economics Working Papers

Since it came into office, the Trump administration has issued a series of executive orders that affect many areas of the government. One such area is taxation. In two orders issued on his first day in office President Trump rejected the participation of the United States in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)`s global minimum corporate tax project and threatened to impose tax countermeasures on countries that adopt "extraterritorial or discriminatory" taxes. Two days later, the Republican members of the House Ways and Means Committee introduced legislation to the same effect. A month later, the president issued another …

Federal Communications Commission V. Consumers' Research: Brief Of Julian Davis Mortenson And Nicholas Bagley As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Julian Mortenson, Nicholas Bagley

Appellate Briefs

Julian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley are professors at the University of Michigan Law School. Mortenson is a specialist on the history of executive authority and the separation of powers. Bagley is a leading scholar in administrative law. They are the co-authors of Delegation at the Founding, 121 Colum. L. Rev. 277 (2021), a leading article examining Founding- era constitutional principles regarding legislative delegations of authority, and Delegation at the Founding: A Response to the Critics, 122 Colum. L. Rev. 2323 (2022).

Next In Line: Addressing The Constitutional And Policy Problems With The Current Presidential Line Of Succession, Arian Carlo Rubio

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The presidential line of succession is a critical component of the United States government, designed to ensure continuity and stability in the executive leadership during crises. This Note examines the current statutory provisions concerning presidential succession to identify constitutional ambiguities and practical challenges that could undermine governmental operations during unforeseen emergencies.

Through a detailed analysis of historical instances, such as the incapacitation scenarios of past presidents and recent threats to government officials, including the COVID-19 pandemic and a rise in political violence, this Note highlights the risks posed by the existing succession framework. The ambiguity primarily revolves around the roles …

Independence Through Judicialization: The Politics Surrounding Administrative Adjudicators, 1929-1949, Lawrence J. Liu

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

One front in today’s battle to define the scope of the administrative state concerns the authority, status, and future of its 10,000-plus administrative adjudicators. Decisions by federal courts and the executive branch to increase the dependence of administrative adjudicators on the executive have sparked strong reactions from observers, with many advocating for measures to increase adjudicator “independence.” But who should administrative adjudicators be independent of, which ought to be independent, and why?

Calls for administrative adjudicator independence are not new. This Article draws on primary documents produced by private actors, congressional decisionmakers, and federal executive agents to present a political …

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

Michigan Law Review

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 …

Pretext, Reality, And Verisimilitude: Truth-Seeking In The Supreme Court, Robert N. Weiner

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The assault on truth in recent public discourse makes it especially important that judicial decisions about Executive actions reflect the world as it is. Judges should not assume some idealized reality where good faith prevails, the motives of public officials are above reproach, and administrative processes are presumptively regular. Unfortunately, however, the Supreme Court has acted on naïve or counterfactual assumptions that limit judicial review of administrative or Presidential action. Such intentional judicial blindness or suspension of justified disbelief—such lack of verisimilitude—can sow doubt regarding the Court’s candor and impartiality.

In analyzing the Court’s fealty to objective reality in its …

The Gloss Of War: Revisiting The Korean War’S Legacy, Mary L. Dudziak

Michigan Law Review

In war powers analysis, reliance on the interpretive method of historical practice, also called the “gloss of history,” has made history a technology of the forever war. This approach draws upon the history of U.S. military conflict to interpret the scope of presidential war power and embeds past actions into the separation of powers. There is a crucial flaw in this methodology, however. The understanding of history in historical gloss is not informed by the changing historiography of war. This has led to a divergence between the “history” in legal authority and the revised historical understanding in scholarly works of …

Administrative Sabotage, David L. Noll

Michigan Law Review

Government can sabotage itself. From the president’s choice of agency heads to agency budgets, regulations, and litigating positions, presidents and their appointees have undermined the very programs they administer. But why would an agency try to put itself out of business? And how can agencies that are subject to an array of political and legal checks sabotage statutory programs?

This Article offers an account of the “what, why, and how” of administrative sabotage that answers those questions. It contends that sabotage reflects a distinct mode of agency action that is more permanent, more destructive, and more democratically illegitimate than more-studied …

United States V. Muhammad: Brief Of Evidence Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Richard D. Friedman

Appellate Briefs

Amici curiae teach, research, and write about the law of evidence. Amici share the view that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit correctly remanded this case to the District Court for an in camera review of the Executive’s claim of the state secrets privilege.<\p>

The concept of “state secrets” is an evidentiary privilege. It is occasionally confused with other doctrines. Privileges are to be strictly construed and narrowly interpreted because they impede the search for truth. The state secrets privilege should not operate as a monarchal “Crown Privilege.” When courts are confronted with state secrets claims, …

Brief For Plaintiff-Appellee, Carroll V. Trump, No. 20-3977 (2nd Cir. Apr. 16, 2021), Leah Litman, Roberta A. Kaplan, Joshua A. Matz, Raymond P. Tolentino

Appellate Briefs

Introduction

In June 2019, E. Jean Carroll revealed that former President Donald J. Trump had sexually assaulted her decades earlier. Trump denied it, saying he did not know who Carroll was and had never met her. But he did not stop there. He launched a series of vicious, personal attacks. He implied that she was too ugly to rape; that she had falsely accused other men of sexual assault; and that she had invented her story for money, or to sell books, or to advance a political plot. None of this was true. Trump knew that he had assaulted Carroll. …

“We Are Asking Why You Treat Us This Way. Is It Because We Are Negroes?” A Reparations-Based Approach To Remedying The Trump Administration’S Cancellation Of Tps Protections For Haitians, Sarah E. Baranik De Alarcón, David H. Secor, Norma Fuentes-Mayorga

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Article places the Trump Administration’s decision to cancel TPS for Haitians within the longer history of U.S. racism and exclusion against Haiti and Haitians, observes the legal challenges against this decision and their limitations, and imagines a future that repairs the harms caused by past and current racist policies. First, this Article briefly outlines the history of exclusionary, race-based immigration laws in the United States, and specifically how this legal framework, coupled with existing anti-Black ideologies in the United States, directly impacted Haitians and Haitian immigrants arriving in the United States. Next, the Article provides an overview of the …

Democracy, Distrust, And Presidential Immunities, Evan H. Caminker

Articles

This Essay sketches how Ely's representation-reinforcement theory of judicial interpretation might frame presidential immunity doctrines and compares that frame to the Court's current approach. To what extent might various forms of presidential immunity, or exceptions thereto, be grounded in principles of democratic accountability rather than presidential efficacy? I conclude that a plausibly constructed Elyan paradigm provides an argument for immunity in many settings but also for exceptions to that immunity in narrow but important circumstances. More specifically: immunity can protect the President's ability to focus on serving her view of the national interest, without being unduly chilled or sidetracked by …

Government Ethics In The Age Of Trump, Adam Raviv

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Americans’ trust in government officials has never been lower. Despite the intense public focus on ethics in government in recent years, legal scholarship on the subject has been sparse. This Article fills the gap by examining the ethics regime of the federal executive branch in depth, with a discussion of both the applicable ethics standards and the agencies and offices that are charged with ensuring that government officials comply with those standards. The Article describes how the current system heavily emphasizes prevention, education, and highly detailed disclosures while it rarely enforces the law against wrongdoers. A federal official in the …

Prosecuting Executive Branch Wrongdoing, Julian A. Cook, Iii

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Attorney General William Barr’s handling of Robert Mueller’s Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election was undeniably controversial and raised meaningful questions regarding the impartiality of the Department of Justice. Yet, Barr’s conduct, which occurred at the conclusion of the Mueller investigation, was merely the caboose at the end of a series of controversies that were coupled together from the outset of the investigation. Ensnarled in dissonance from its inception, the Mueller investigation was dogged by controversies that ultimately compromised its legitimacy.

Public trust of criminal investigations of executive branch wrongdoing requires prosecutorial independence. To …

Jail By Another Name: Ice Detention Of Immigrant Criminal Defendants On Pretrial Release, Kerry Martin

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This Article assesses the legality of an alarming practice: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) routinely detains noncitizen criminal defendants soon after they have been released on bail, depriving them of their court-ordered freedom. Since the District of Oregon’s decision in United States v. Trujillo-Alvarez, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Or. 2012), a growing group of federal courts has held that when ICE detains federal criminal defendants released under the Bail Reform Act (BRA), it violates their BRA rights. These courts have ordered that the government either free the defendants from ICE custody or dismiss their criminal charges. This …

The Permissibility Of Acting Officials: May The President Work Around Senate Confirmation?, Nina A. Mendelson

Articles

Recent presidential reliance on acting agency officials, including an acting Attorney General, acting Secretaries of Defense, and an acting Secretary of Homeland Security, as well as numerous below-Cabinet officials, has drawn significant criticism from scholars, the media, and members of Congress. They worry that the President may be pursuing illegitimate goals and seeking to bypass the critical Senate role under the Appointments Clause. But Congress has authorized—and Presidents have called upon—such individuals from the early years of the Republic to the present. Meanwhile, neither formalist approaches to the constitutional issue, which seem to permit no flexibility, nor current Supreme Court …

Resolving Alj Removal Protections Problem Following Lucia, Spencer Davenport

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

When the Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC and held that administrative law judges (ALJs) are Officers under the Constitution, the Court opened a flood of constitutional issues around the status of ALJs and related government positions. One central issue relates to ALJs’ removal protections. ALJs currently have two layers of protection between them and the President. In an earlier Supreme Court decision, the Court held that two layers of tenure protection between an “Officer of the United States” and the President was unconstitutional as it deprived the President the power to hold his officers accountable. As impartial adjudicators, ALJs …