President/Executive Department Commons^™

Destructive Federal Decentralization, David Fontana

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article—written for a symposium hosted by the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal—focuses on the efforts by the Trump administration to relocate federal officials outside of Washington to reduce the capacity of the federal government. Federalism and the separation of powers are usually the twin pillars of structural constitutional law. Locating federal officials outside of Washington— federal decentralization—has been an additional tool of diffusing power that has started to gain some scholarly attention. These debates largely focus on structural constitutional law as constructive—as improving the capacity and operation of the federal and state governments. The power …

Who Constrains Presidential Exercise Of Delegated Powers?, Rebecca L. Brown

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Building on the work of administrative law scholars who have identified and illuminated the several components of the problem over the years, this Article will seek to show what has happened when a cluster of separate circumstances have come together to create a new and serious threat to individual liberty when the President exercises expansive delegated authority. Several doctrinal components lead to this confluence: First, the moribund “intelligible principle” test has evolved to provide little or no constraint on this or any other delegation. Second, a delegation to the President, specifically, is not subject to the procedural requirements of the …

United Nations At 75 And The Challenges Facing International Law, Ved Nanda

Pace International Law Review

On September 21, 2020, the Member States celebrated the seventy-fifth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. In the Declaration marking the occasion, world leaders recounted the achievements of the body, including catalyzing decolonization, promoting and protecting human rights, working to eradicate disease, helping mitigate dozens of conflicts, and saving lives through humanitarian action. They also enumerated challenges the world faces, such as “growing inequality, poverty, hunger, armed conflicts, terrorism, insecurity, climate change, and pandemics.” These challenges, the Declaration said, are interconnected and can only be addressed through reinvigorated multilateralism, which, it emphasized, “is not an option but a …

The Constitution, Covid-19, And Civil Disobedience: Federalism In Flames And The Slippery Slope To Socialism, Savannah Snyder

Helm's School of Government Conference - 2021-2024

Our Constitution has been devastatingly corrupted from its original design and vision amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Governors usurped authority in the name of crisis mitigation. Our unalienable rights have been macerated and pulverized by droves of executive orders, each delivering a calamitous blow to the integrity of the American republican framework. Socialized medicine is on the horizon as our compliance is coerced. Conventional civil disobedience has been regulatorily revoked. We have succumbed to the decrees of depraved men who maintain that education, religious expression, and pursuits of happiness can be invalidated by whatever transgressions the state deems necessary. For the …

Judicial Autonomy V. Executive Authority: Which Prevails In The Case Of A Postcommutation Collateral Attack?, Vincent A. Marrazzo

Notre Dame Law Review

An inmate with a commuted sentence will sometimes collaterally attack his already commuted sentence. This raises the question: Does an act of executive clemency divest the courts of authority to hear the collateral attack? In other words, does clemency moot the issues involved in the collateral attack? While multiple circuit courts have weighed in on this question, the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have developed the most robust discussions, disagreeing about whether federal courts may hear these cases. The Fourth Circuit has held that a collateral attack postcommutation is moot as the “President’s commutation order simply closes the judicial door.” In …

Serving A Lawless President, William R. Casto

Mercer Law Review

What does an Attorney General do when confronted with a lawless President? At first glance, the answer is easy, but on second thought, a realistic answer is complicated. The answer is complicated because the phrase “lawless president” is not necessarily pejorative. In fact, western leaders have always exercised a prerogative power to throw the law overboard when they see fit. Some of our greatest Presidents have followed this path. Thomas Jefferson did, as did Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.

So what does the President’s Attorney General do? The law and principles of professional responsibility offer a clear answer to the …

The Error Of The Paquete Habana: U.S. Naval Forces In The Safe Harbor Of Commander-In-Chief Discretion And The Law Of War, T. Nelson Collier

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Gundy V. United States: How Justice Gorsuch’S Dissent And Changing Judicial Philosophy In Federal Courts May Lead To A Revived Nondelegation Doctrine And Diminish The Purpose Of The Administrative Procedure Act, Zachary Pfrang Olvera

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Robert Jackson's Critique Of Trump V. Hawaii, William R. Casto

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Over seventy years ago, United States Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson accurately predicted the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii. As he foresaw, the Court rubberstamped a President’s purposeful discrimination against a minority religion. This brief Essay explains Trump using Jackson’s critique of judicial review in national-security cases. The Essay also uses Trump to examine a flaw—probably structural—in the constitutional theory of process jurisprudence. The Trump case involved the Court’s construction of congressional legislation apparently limiting the President’s authority, but the present Essay does not address that aspect of the opinion.

Pandemic, Politics, Public Health , And The Fda, Jordan Paradise, Becky Bavlsik

Belmont Law Review

No abstract provided.

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. …

If Not Now, When? Finding Jurisdiction To Review Immigration Enforcement Action In The Trump Era, Elizabeth L. Jackson

Et Cetera

The Trump Presidency left an indelible mark on the U.S. immigration system. From extreme enforcement practices to unconstitutional policies, the vast power of the executive branch and the underutilized strength of the judicial branch was thrust into a harsh light. The failure of lower courts to adequately understand and apply the narrow construction of jurisdiction-limiting statutes created unjust and absurd results on a number of issues, from the targeting of immigration activists for enforcement actions to the so-called Migrant Protection Protocols. The consistent application of Supreme Court precedent allowing for Federal jurisdiction in this area remains absolutely necessary to right …

A Concept Of Shared Principles And The Constitutional Homogeneity In Europe: The Case Of Subsidiarity, Volker Roeben

Cardozo International & Comparative Law Review

The article explores the concept of subsidiarity as a shared legal principle in both the European Union (EU) and German law, focusing on its role in ensuring the accountability of central authority while safeguarding the autonomy of peripheral legislatures. It highlights the convergence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on a rationale of legality, aimed at preventing central overreach into peripheral competences. Despite this alignment, the article notes divergent outcomes in the application of subsidiarity, with the FCC more frequently invalidating federal legislation compared to the CJEU's more restrained …

Prosecuting Executive Branch Wrongdoing, Julian A. Cook

Scholarly Works

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 …

We Need A Cole Memorandum For Magic Mushrooms, Robert A. Mikos

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In fall 2020, as the nation elected Joe Biden to be our Forty-Sixth President, Oregon voters also passed a noteworthy new drug law reform. Known as Measure 109, Oregon’s path-breaking law legalizes the use of psilocybin, a hallucinogenic substance found in magic mushrooms. Measure 109 is designed to unlock the therapeutic potential of psilocybin, which advocates tout as an effective and safe treatment for depression and other psychological conditions.

Given the burgeoning interest in psychedelics, many people are excited to see how Oregon’s psilocybin experiment pans out. But at this point, it remains unclear whether the experiment will even get …

Presidential Transitions Within The Administrative State, Michael E. Herz, Katherine A. Shaw

Articles

No abstract provided.

Article I: Reforming The War Powers Resolution For The 21st Century, Rebecca Ingber

Testimony

Professor Rebecca Ingber testified at a U.S. House Committee on Rules hearing on March 23, 2021, titled "Article I: Reforming the War Powers Resolution for the 21st Century."

Relentless Pursuits: Reflections Of An Immigration And Human Rights Clinician On The Past Four Years, Sarah H. Paoletti

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Deconstructing Invisible Walls: Sotomayor's Dissents In An Era Of Immigration Exceptionalism, Karla Mckanders

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

“Drive-By” Jurisdiction: Congressional Oversight In Court, Daniel Epstein

Pepperdine Law Review

On July 9, 2020, in Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP and Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts did not adequately consider the separation of powers concerns attendant to congressional subpoenas for presidential information. Given that the question presented in Mazars concerned whether Congress had a legitimate legislative purpose in subpoenaing the President’s personal records, the Supreme Court’s decision is anything but a model of clarity. The Court simultaneously opined that disputes “involving nonprivileged, private information” “do[ ] not implicate sensitive Executive Branch deliberations” while claiming “congressional subpoenas for the President’s information unavoidably pit …