President/Executive Department Commons^™

Response To William W. Buzbee, Deregulatory Splintering: What Might The Other Side Say?, Todd D. Rakoff

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Regulatory Accoutability Act Loses Steam But The Trump Executive Order On Alj Selection Upturned 71 Years Of Practice, Jeffery S. Lubbers

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mischief With Government Information Policy, Renée M. Landers

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Administrative Truth: Comments On Cortez's Information Mischief, David Thaw

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Comments On Executive Ruilemaking And Democratic Legitimacy: "Reform" In The United States And The United Kingdom's Brexit Bt Susan Rose-Ackerman, Nicholas Almendares

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Eroding "Checks" On Presidential Authorty -- Norms, The Civil Service, And The Courts, Peter L. Strauss

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Servant Resistance At The Epa -- A Response To Jennifer Nou, Joel A. Mintz

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Civil Servant Alarm, Bijal Shah

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Civil servants have long resisted presidential immigration policies. However, bureaucratic by superiors, retaliation against resistance is the norm under the current dministration, despite the fact that this resistance has resulted from principled “dissonance” between civil servants’ understanding of their core responsibilities and the priorities emphasized by new political directives. Rather than condemnation, however, frequent incidents of resistance from divergent factions of the immigration bureaucracy, particularly if met with a harsh response from the President, should be characterized as a “fire alarm” imploring a congressional response.

The Opioid Litigation: The Fda Is Mia, Catherine M. Sharkey

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

It is readily agreed that federal preemption of state tort law alters the balance between federal and state power. Federal preemption is a high-profile defense in almost all modern products liability cases. It is thus surprising to see how little attention has been given to federal preemption by courts and commentators in the opioid litigation. Opioid litigation provides a lens through which I explore the role of state and federal courts and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in striking the right balance of power. My purpose here is not to resolve the divide among the few courts that have …

State Intent Under International Law, Stephen Townley

Cardozo International & Comparative Law Review

The question of legislative intent has long been a topic of intense scholarly focus in the United States. There has also been a recent uptick in discussion of executive branch intent with the filing of highprofile lawsuits predicated upon allegations of improper motives. However, there has been no corollary effort to unpack the concept of state intent at the international level, where it arises with respect to such varied questions as how to understand the scope of a state's consent, whether a state should be deemed to be negotiating in good faith, and whether a state has engaged in genocide. …

Return Of The King: Corruption Backsliding In America, Pedro Gerson

Cardozo International & Comparative Law Review

The United States appears to be going through a crisis of corruption. However, it is hard to know whether this is a matter of appearance or if the country is at risk of high levels of corruption making a comeback. The Article applies the equilibrium model of corruptionthe leading social science account of how corruption operates-to the current U.S. system, and shows that the United States may indeed be backsliding. The potential for corruption to creep back up is due to more than the political moment. Rather, it is the result ofpolitics combined with the relatively powerless institutional controls for …

Abolishing Ice Is Not Enough: Using Conservative Judicial Principles To Protect Unauthorized Immigrants From A "Tyrannical Bureaucracy", Ashley Dylenski

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The note argues that abolishing ICE alone will not resolve the systemic issues plaguing the U.S. immigration system, as the root problem lies in Congress's overdelegation of authority to executive agencies. These agencies, operating under doctrines like plenary power and Chevron deference, wield broad discretion with minimal judicial oversight, leading to inhumane and unpredictable enforcement practices. The analysis advocates for resurrecting the nondelegation doctrine and reasserting congressional authority to restore separation of powers and ensure a more humane and transparent immigration system.

Congressional Administration Of Foreign Affairs, Rebecca Ingber

Faculty Scholarship

Longstanding debates over the allocation of foreign affairs power between Congress and the President have reached a stalemate. Wherever the formal line between Congress and the President’s powers is drawn, it is well established that, as a functional matter, even in times of great discord between the two branches, the President wields immense power when he acts in the name of foreign policy or national security.

And yet, while scholarship focuses on the accretion of power in the presidency, presidential primacy is not the end of the story. The fact that the President usually “wins” in foreign affairs does not …

Dreamers Interrupted: The Case Of The Rescission Of The Program Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals, Rachel F. Moran

Faculty Scholarship

In 1994, California voters went to the polls to pass Proposition 187, a measure designed to deter unauthorized immigration by denying a range of public benefits to the undocumented. Twenty-five years later, undocumented immigration remains a deeply polarizing issue in our country. But if the political discourse seems similar, the civil rights toolkit is not. In an earlier era, equal protection arguments had pride of place, but today, advocates rely heavily on structural and institutional arguments to constrain official discretion.

In 1982, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe declared unconstitutional a Texas statute that denied undocumented …

Deregulation Defanged: An Empirical Review Of Federal Deregulatory Policy And Its Legal Obstacles, Jack Thorlin

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

Presidential Immunity From Prosecution: Tolling The Statute Of Limitations, Margit Livingston

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

How Can Presidents Properly Calibrate The Terror Threat?, Gabriel Rubin

Department of Justice Studies Faculty Scholarship and Creative Works

Presidential rhetoric has minimally changed from the narrative set by George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks. Bush’s policies and agenda have also largely remained. This chapter provides proposals for change given the empirical and theoretical findings made in the book. The counterterrorist policy agenda needs to be narrowed and made more precise. The public needs to educate itself about the terror threat to understand that it is not a significant risk when weighed against others. Presidents need to be more careful with what words they use when describing America’s terrorist adversaries and with who they call terrorists. Recalibrating the …

George W. Bush, Policy Selling And Agenda-Setting After 9/11, Gabriel Rubin

Department of Justice Studies Faculty Scholarship and Creative Works

George W. Bush successfully set the agenda for an expansive, global war against terrorists after the 9/11 attacks. This agenda was not inevitable, it arose from an interpretation of events and of America’s adversaries that leaned on global conflict, cultural differences, and the presumption of evil intent. Bush’s speech-making successfully led to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, civil liberty-reducing legislation, and a large institutional edifice dedicated to counterterrorism. The themes Bush’s speeches evoked and the agendas and policies that these speeches set are covered in this chapter.

Inflating The Terror Threat Since 2001, Gabriel Rubin

Department of Justice Studies Faculty Scholarship and Creative Works

Presidential rhetoric serves a critical interpretive role in defining events, particularly the threat of terrorism. As Richard Neustadt argues, the power of the presidency lies in the leader’s power to persuade. Presidents frame the terror threat by setting the country’s policy agenda. They then try to sell policies to Congress and the public through the pressure they can employ using their rhetoric and their office. This study, based on content analysis speech data ranging from September 2001 to February 2019, delves into why presidents speak the way they do about terrorism looking both at the content and frequency of their …

Donald Trump, Twitter, And Islamophobia: The End Of Dignity In Presidential Rhetoric About Terrorism, Gabriel Rubin

Department of Justice Studies Faculty Scholarship and Creative Works

Donald Trump’s rhetoric is markedly different than that of just about every other American president. Trump’s speeches on terrorism and his related Islamophobia and anti-immigrant rhetoric are examined in this chapter. Trump’s use of Twitter and view of the presidency as a “permanent campaign” keep his followers in a state of near-permanent mobilization. Trump uses the rhetoric of fear to push his followers against Muslims and immigrants by linking terrorism to both groups. As Jeffrey Tulis opines, Trump is America’s first demagogue. This chapter highlights how Trump’s demagoguery and novel method for communicating with his followers has framed the terror …