President/Executive Department Commons^™

Executive Order 14330: A Solution In Search Of A Problem, Edward A. Zelinsky

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

President Trump’s Executive Order 14330 proclaims its determination to “democratiz[e] access to alternative investments for 401(k) investors.” Among its other provisions, Executive Order 14330 requires the Department of Labor (DOL) to “clarify the duties that a fiduciary owes to plan participants.” Such clarification shall “relieve the regulatory burdens and litigation risk that” allegedly deny 401(k) participants access to alternative investments. However, the order states, DOL’s administrative guidance on alternative investments must be “consistent with applicable law.”

The Solicitor General, Consistency, And Credibility, Margaret H. Lemos, Deborah A. Widiss

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This Article offers the first comprehensive look at cases in which the Solicitor General (SG) rejects a legal argument offered on behalf of the United States in prior litigation. Such reversals have received considerable attention in recent years, as shifts in presidential administrations have produced multiple high-profile “flip-flops”—as the Justices sometimes call them—by the SG. Even those observers who defend the SG, including veterans of the office, caution that inconsistency in legal argument poses a threat to the SG’s credibility with the Court. Our goal is to better understand the circumstances that lead the SG to change its position on …

Pro Bono Publico Versus Pro Bono Presidential, S. I. Strong

Faculty Articles

In March and April 2025, the Trump Administration issued a series of executive orders directed at various law firms that had represented clients or undertaken actions with which the President disagreed. Those executive orders imposed various sanctions capable of destroying the firms financially. The Administration also threatened numerous other law firms with similar types of executive orders.

Although a few law firms challenged the executive orders in court, the majority of firms targeted by the President entered into informal settlement agreements whereby the firms promised to provide between $40 million and $125 million worth of free “pro bono legal services” …

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

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

“Modernizing Regulatory Review”: A Short-Lived Abandonment Of More Than Four Decades Of Regulatory Review And Benefit-Cost Analysis, Richard Belzer

FIU Law Review

"President Biden’s Modernizing Regulatory Review (MRR) initiative fundamentally altered regulatory procedures, practices, and centralized oversight that had been in place since 1981 when they were formalized by President Reagan in Executive Order 12,291. MRR proceeded in three phases. First, a Memorandum issued on President Biden’s first day in office telegraphing the broad outlines of the plan. Second, more than two years later, an Executive Order codifying the MRR memorandum was issued, combined with implementation guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). And third, OMB guidance on the conduct of regulatory BCA was radically revised, clearly with an …

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 …

The Excluded: Where Did Our Rights Come From, Who Paid The Price Trying To Establish Them, And Who Is Trying To Take Them Away? The Centuries-Long Struggle For Inclusion, Jim Brosnahan

University of San Francisco Law Review

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, …

Trump Has A Point On Trade, William Snape

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

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 …

Law Enforcement Independence In Trump’S Second Term, Justin Murray

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Executive Branch: Powers Of The President & Inaugurations, Wolf Law Library, William & Mary Law School

Library Book Displays

On display in the Wolf Law Library January - July 2025.

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 …

Bend, Don’T Break: Promoting Interagency Collaboration To Enhance Economic Sanctions As A Foreign Policy Tool, Carson Sugg

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

The U.S. government’s sanctions measures and related enforcement actions for violations are ascending to new levels— both in number and scope. The Executive branch contends that additional authority is necessary to adequately undertake these initiatives, which are a response to proliferating exigent global situations. The requests face opposition from members of Congress and legal scholars, who argue that the current sanctions regime disproportionally favors the Executive at a cost to both individuals and the co-equal branches. The push and pull of these stances suggest that a review of the current regime is due.

This Note argues that economic sanctions …

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 …

Water, Rosario Sanchez, Gabriel E. Eckstein

Faculty Scholarship

As the new US administration begins its term in January 2025, its ability to address complex, interconnected challenges will shape the future of US-Mexico relations. From economic cooperation and migration to shared security concerns, the new president’s leadership will be pivotal in navigating these critical issues and strengthening bilateral ties between Mexico and the United States. Effective collaboration will be vital to building a more prosperous and stable North America.

To support this effort, the Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute has prepared a comprehensive booklet as a practical roadmap for the incoming administration. This publication offers actionable recommendations across six priority …

How The European Union Should Respond To Trump's Tariffs, Ignacio García Bercero, Petros C. Mavroidis, André Sapir

Faculty Scholarship

President-elect Trump has threatened to increase United States tariffs to 60 percent on imports from China and 10 percent to 20 percent on imports from other trading partners, including the European Union. In doing so the US would be ignoring its World Trade Organisation commitments and would also rollback the substantial liberalisation that has taken place during the past 80 years, with a potentially major negative impact on the world economy.

In response to this threat, the EU should pursue a three-pronged strategy.

First, the EU should engage bilaterally with the US to seek to avoid the imposition of tariffs. …

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 …

Accommodating Incompetency In Immigration Court, Elizabeth Jordan

Northwestern University Law Review

In criminal law, an individual must be deemed competent to stand trial, yet our immigration courts routinely order the deportation of incompetent noncitizens. A removal proceeding against a noncitizen—where an outcome of deportation often risks life-threatening harm—continues apace even if the noncitizen has been deemed incompetent by the immigration judge. In place of halting proceedings, the immigration judge imposes “safeguards” pursuant to a provision of the immigration code that neither defines nor explains the term. In practice, judges’ application of the term “safeguards” is often absurd. The implications of continuing a proceeding against a noncitizen with a disability affecting competency …