President/Executive Department Commons^™

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 …

One Nation Under Trump: More Power To Him?, Jessica Hernandez

University of Miami Business Law Review

This note examines the following question: to what extent has the Trump administration heralded an expansion of presidential trade powers with respect to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962? It proceeds by first providing an overview of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. It then looks at the Section 232 investigations which (a) preceded Trump’s assumption of office and (b) resulted in presidential trade action. After reviewing the aforementioned investigations, this note examines the Section 232 investigations initiated under the Trump administration. Attention is paid to how the Trump administration has defined ‘national security’ more broadly. The …

Dismantling The Wto: The United States’ Battle Against World Trade, Aaron Seals

University of Miami Business Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Untouchable Executive Authority: Trump And The Section 232 Tariffs On Steel And Aluminum, Arim Jenny Kim

University of Miami Business Law Review

In 2018, President Trump championed his way through the imposition of the Section 232 Tariffs—a heavy tax on various imports, including steel and aluminum—by broadcasting a supposedly-imminent threat to the U.S. national security. This plea, however, has been criticized as a veil for President Trump’s economic protectionism policy. Meanwhile, others have questioned the constitutionality of the statute creating the President’s authority to impose these tariffs in the first place. This Comment explores the issues arising from President Trump’s Section 232 Tariffs on steel and aluminum: (1) the validity and justiciability of President Trump’s actions under Section 232 of the Trade …

Fiduciary Injury And Citizen Enforcement Of The Emoluments Clause, Meredith M. Render

Notre Dame Law Review

The text of the Emoluments Clause provides no explicit enforcement mechanism, raising questions about who may enforce the Clause, and the mechanism by which it might be enforced. Is the Clause enforceable exclusively by collective action—such as an impeachment proceeding by Congress—or is it also enforceable by individual action—such as a private lawsuit? If the Emoluments Clause can be enforced by private action, who has standing to sue? In the absence of explicit textual guidance, a broader constitutional theory is required to render enforcement of the Clause coherent.

This Article presents that broader theory. The Article argues that the Emoluments …

Stop Regulating Government Paperwork With More Government Paperwork, Joseph D. Condon

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) is an often-ignored law with a large impact. Federal agencies cannot ask the same questions of more than nine people or entities without submitting a proposed information collection to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review, a process that can take up to a year to complete. In an attempt to regulate the amount of paperwork foisted on the public, the PRA has created an enormous amount of paperwork for federal agencies—without any meaningful reduction in the paperwork burden faced by the public. Yet, likely because the burden of the PRA is …

Judicial Credibility, Bert I. Huang

William & Mary Law Review

Do people believe a federal court when it rules against the government? And does such judicial credibility depend on the perceived political affiliation of the judge? This study presents a survey experiment addressing these questions, based on a set of recent cases in which both a judge appointed by President George W. Bush and a judge appointed by President Bill Clinton declared the same Trump Administration action to be unlawful. The findings offer evidence that, in a politically salient case, the partisan identification of the judge—here, as a “Bush judge” or “Clinton judge”—can influence the credibility of judicial review in …

The Judicial Reforms Of 1937, Barry Cushman

William & Mary Law Review

The literature on reform of the federal courts in 1937 understandably focuses on the history and consequences of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ill-fated proposal to increase the membership of the Supreme Court. A series of decisions declaring various components of the New Deal unconstitutional had persuaded Roosevelt and some of his advisors that the best way out of the impasse was to enlarge the number of justiceships and to appoint to the new positions jurists who would be “dependable” supporters of the administration’s program. Yet Roosevelt and congressional Democrats also were deeply troubled by what they perceived as judicial obstruction …

First, We'll Neuter All The Judges, A. Benjamin Spencer

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

A Brief History Of Judical Appointments From The Last 50 Years Through The Trump Administration, Donald F. Mcgahn Ii

William & Mary Law Review

Thank you so much for that kind introduction. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I am going to talk about the confirmation process generally. There is no better place to talk about it than here. Let me begin with some numbers and statistics, before I turn to the main thrust of my talk, to give some context as to what recent Presidents have done with respect to judicial appointments. President Trump has appointed two Supreme Court Justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett of Appeals; twenty-nine so far have been confirmed. The Senate Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, has already …

Administrative Law: Whose Job Is It Anyway?, Allison Mather

Pepperdine Law Review

This Note examines the current state of judicial deference to administrative agencies and suggests modifying the doctrine to better comport with the Constitution. It examines the history of administrative agencies and the rise of judicial deference. The Note explores the present-day applications of judicial deference and analyzes whether the current doctrine is consistent with both its initial underlying policies and the Constitution. Ultimately, judicial deference to administrative agencies raises serious separation of powers concerns and should be modified to remain faithful to the nation’s founding principles.

Filling The Illinois Federal District Court Vacancies, Carl Tobias

Pepperdine Law Review

President Donald Trump repeatedly argues that appellate court appointments constitute his major success. The President and the United States Senate Republican Party majority have established records by approving fifty very conservative, young, and capable appellate court jurists. However, their confirmations have exacted a toll, particularly from the many federal district courts which address seventy-nine unfilled positions in 677 judicial posts. One constructive illustration has been the three Illinois tribunals which confront five pressing openings. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts classifies three as “emergencies,” because the vacant seats have been protracted and involve substantial caseloads. Despite this circumstance, …

Is The "Hire American" Executive Order A Suspect Classification?, Michael H. Leroy

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

President Trump’s Executive Order 13,788 declares a “Hire American” policy for H-1B visas. This action discriminates against Indians to benefit white American workers. The technology workforce in the United States has 4.6 million jobs. Most employees in this large workforce—about 76%—are U.S.-born. In this domestic segment, 85% of employees are white. Among foreign-born workers (11.6% of all workers), Asians make up 66%, with Indians predominating.

“Hire American” renews a mostly forgotten history of discrimination against Indian workers. The Immigration Act of 1917 enacted an “Asiatic Barred Zone.” Indian immigration was curtailed to 100 annual arrivals. Typical of the period, the …