Administrative Law Commons^™

Presidential Removal As Article I, Not Article Ii, Gary Lawson, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

As a matter of original public meaning, Article I’s Necessary and Proper clause is the starting point for both Congress’s power to create offices and the limits on that power.

We believe that many legal scholars have demonstrated that, as a matter of original public meaning, the term “executive power” did not imply a presidential removal power, and Article II did not imply an indefeasible (unconditional) presidential removal power. By contrast, Article I’s Necessary and Proper Clause is a basis for limiting congressional power that is more historically grounded in original public meaning and in early practice. Tenure protections and …

Penambahan Jumlah Kementerian Negara: Analisis Terhadap Efektivitas Dan Efisiensi Pemerintahan, Bayu Saputro, Alfi Syahri Lubis, Renaldy Wijaksana Wibowo, M. Fariz Al-Qindi

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

The revision of Law 39/2008 on State Ministries, which removes the maximum limit of 34 ministries, has become a polemic issue in society. Analysis shows that increasing the number of ministries is not urgent and runs counter to the spirit of bureaucratic reform. This policy also does not improve the effectiveness of government administration, because the main issue affecting the effectiveness of ministries lies in the quality of ministers, not the number of ministries. The addition of ministries has the potential to cause overlapping authorities, regulatory disharmony, and sectoral egos. From an efficiency perspective, this policy places a heavy burden …

Doktrin Penyalahgunaan Hak (Abus Des Droit), Syukron Salam

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

The present article examines the emergence of the doctrine of abus de droit in France in the mid-twentieth century through an analysis of key judicial decisions and the debates that followed them. The study commences with an exposition of the manner in which the evolution of capitalism, concomitant with the escalating economic disparity and the propagation of societal challenges, has influenced the judicial approach to the abstract Roman-law tradition of absolute rights. In light of this, the article contends that the civil-law tradition exhibited a fundamental flaw in its conceptualisation of rights as absolute, thereby overlooking objections that were firmly …

Politik Hukum Kedudukan Wakil Presiden Dalam Badan Pengarah Percepatan Pembangunan Otonomi Khusus Papua, Maleakhi Samuel Pasalli, Yamuna Nurafifah, Pranaldo Gunawan

Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan

The legal policy regarding the amendment of Law Number 21 of 2001 into Law Number 2 of 2021 concerning Special Autonomy for Papua marks a paradigm shift from asymmetric decentralization towards controlled autonomy or leading to the centralization of power, notably through the establishment of the Steering Committee for Acceleration of Development of Special Autonomy for Papua (BP3OKP), which is chaired directly by the Vice President. This research is motivated by juridical issues wherein the Academic Paper (Naskah Akademik) of the amendment fails to provide scientific justification regarding the urgency of establishing this special body or the involvement of the …

The Post-Chevron Law Of Deference For Investor-State Arbitration, Won L. Kidane

Faculty Publications

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the United States Supreme Court clarified the “law of deference” built “on the foundation laid in Chevron.” The American conception of the law of deference, long solidified as the Chevron doctrine, has had extraordinary resonance, having been cited in at least 18,000 cases and 22,000 publications over a period of forty years.

The Court’s overruling of the two-step Chevron analysis for the resolution of statutory ambiguity is the most obvious outcome and is likely to attract the most attention. There is, however, an obscure aspect of the Court’s overruling of Chevron: the clarification of …

Fact Checking Oral Argument In Slaughter, Lev Menand

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court heard argument on Monday in Trump v. Slaughter, a case in which the President seeks to override the power of Congress to limit, through legislation, presidential removal of federal administrators. The argument revealed some confusion about the law and history of federal offices and multiple precedents important to resolving the question. This post examines mistakes and misreadings with respect to: the design of the Federal Reserve System; the meaning of a fixed term; and the Court’s decisions in Marbury v. Madison, Ex Parte Hennen, and Parsons v. United States.

Slaughter, Parsons, And The Original Meaning Of A Term Of Years, Jane Manners, Lev Menand

Faculty Scholarship

This term the Supreme Court is hearing argument in two major cases regarding the law of federal offices. One — Trump v. Slaughter — may strip Congress of the power to place any restrictions on the President’s ability to remove administrators at will. Another — Trump v. Cook — will address how such restrictions work, assuming that the President has to follow them.

Torts And Pesticide Drift: Amending Right-To-Farm Acts In The Wake Of Widespread Dicamba Drift By Nicholas Brown** And Matt Roessing*

Journal of Legal Studies in Business

When crops die in a field prior to harvest, a farmer loses a portion of his salary for that year. When the cause of the crop loss is natural, farmers can usually seek compensation through crop insurance and government commodity support programs. When the crops were lost as a result of pesticide drift, these forms of compensation are not usually available to farmers.1 In order to make up for their losses, farmers can seek damages through judicial redress. For many decades, various state and federal laws have combined to complicate and at times prevent farmers adversely affected by pesticide drift …

Cover Page & Table Of Contents - Volume 23

Journal of Legal Studies in Business

JLSB vol. 23 Title Page & Table of Contents

Incorporating Tax Law Into Legal And Regulatory Environment Of Business Courses

Journal of Legal Studies in Business

No abstract provided.

Too Much, Too Little, Or Just Right? Beyond The Perception (Or Reality) Of Law School Rigor In Teaching Undergraduate Copyright Law

Journal of Legal Studies in Business

No abstract provided.

The Major Question Left For The Roberts Court, Will Chevron Survive?, Caleb B. Childers

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Against Algorithmic Auer Deference, Chad Squitieri

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

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.

The Trump Law Firm Intimidation Policy: A Look Inside The Wreckage, Jacob Burns Center For Ethics In The Practice Of Law, David Mcgowan, W. Bradley Wendel, Staci Zaretsky

2025 Event Invitations

The Trump Administration has engaged in what the ABA has called a “Law Firm Intimidation Policy”; intended to change how America's largest and most prestigious firms practice law.

Nine firms have “settled” with the Administration, while four firms have filed suit to enjoin the Administration's actions, and have won some early victories. Other firms have expressed their opposition to the admiration’s policy in various ways. After more than half a year, what lessons, if any, can be drawn from the bar's response to the Law Firm Intimidation Policy? Were predictions that the Administration's efforts would cause significant harm to the …

The Trump Law Firm Intimidation Policy: A Look Inside The Wreckage, Jacob Burns Center For Ethics In The Practice Of Law, David Mcgowan, Bradley Wendel, Staci Zaretsky

2025–2026 Flyers

The Trump Administration has engaged in what the ABA has called a "Law Firm Intimidation Policy" intended to change how America's largest and most prestigious firms practice law.

West Flagler And The Future Of Sports Betting: Navigating Tribal Sovereignty And The Need For Consumer Protection In A Growing Market, Jake Granese

University of Miami Business Law Review

Sports betting in the United States has exploded in recent years, with a record–breaking $11 billion in revenue in 2023. This growth has inspired state governments to try to leverage this lucrative business. One recent development is the 2021 Gaming Compact between the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the state of Florida. The Compact represents a milestone towards exclusivity in mobile gaming for Native American tribal nations. Under the Compact, the Seminole Tribe receives sports betting exclusivity, for both retail sports wagering and online sports wagering across the state of Florida, in exchange for a revenue sharing arrangement—unlike any other …

The Cost Of Waiting: Navigating The Ftc’S Noncompete Ban And The Risks Of Inaction, Cameron Weiss

University of Miami Business Law Review

This Comment critically examines the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) now–abandoned rule that sought to ban noncompete clauses in employment contracts, emphasizing the limitations of advice provided by attorneys, legal scholars, and experts who advocate for a “wait–and–see” approach during its development and subsequent litigation. Noncompetes, while serving as a tool for employers to safeguard proprietary interests and limit competition, also restrict employee mobility and bargaining power. The FTC’s proposed rule, which aimed to ban most noncompete clauses, faced immediate and substantial legal challenges under the major questions and nondelegation doctrines.

Although the FTC ultimately ceased defending the rule and acceded …

Presidents, Opinions, And Independent Officers, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

The Opinions in Writing Clause is a persistent textual problem for the claim that Article II implies an indefeasible removal power: If the Framers believed they had given the president an unconditional removal power, why would they also specify a lesser power merely to ask for opinions? New historical research confirms this textual problem was also contextual: early state constitutions, the Ratification debates, and the First Congress indicate that the Opinions Clause’s original public meaning signaled independence of department heads, or at least the possibility of congressional requirements like good cause.

Legal scholars have already shown that the texts of …

The Interpretive Foundations Of Arbitrary Or Capricious Review, Alexander Mechanick

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.