On the Biden/Harris Court "Reforms"
So much for constitutional norms
His criticism of President Joe Biden’s proposed Supreme Court reform is hard to take seriously.
Recent actions by the FTC show that its officers should review the Constitution.
There’s less reason to fight when one-size-fits-all policies are replaced with local diversity.
We need not conjure "extreme hypotheticals" to understand the danger posed by an "energetic executive" who feels free to flout the law.
Plus: A listener asks whether Bruce Springsteen's song Born in the U.S.A is actually patriotic.
There is no textual basis for "immunity" as such, but there are structural reasons why some degree of insulation is inevitable.
Contrary to progressive criticism, curtailing bureaucratic power is not about protecting "the wealthy and powerful."
By requiring "absolute" immunity for some "official acts" and "presumptive" immunity for others, the justices cast doubt on the viability of Donald Trump's election interference prosecution.
The Court says Chevron deference allows bureaucrats to usurp a judicial function, creating "an eternal fog of uncertainty" about what the law allows or requires.
Chevron deference, a doctrine created by the Court in 1984, gives federal agencies wide latitude in interpreting the meaning of various laws. But the justices may overturn that.
The case hinged on the ATF’s statutory authority, not the Second Amendment.
Plus: A listener asks the editors about the Selective Service.
Six justices agreed that federal regulators had misconstrued the statutory definition of a machine gun.
Fifth in a series of guest-blogging posts.
Most of the justices seem skeptical of granting Donald Trump complete immunity from criminal prosecution for "official acts."
The Supreme Court will decide whether former presidents can avoid criminal prosecution by avoiding impeachment and removal.
Several justices seemed troubled by an ATF rule that purports to ban bump stocks by reinterpreting the federal definition of machine guns.
His lawyers assert presidential immunity and discretion, criticize an "unconstitutionally vague" statute, and question the special counsel's legal status.
The case raises an issue of high importance and the opinion may contain some loose reasoning.
The appeals court says it "cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter."
A watchdog group cites ATF "whistleblowers" who describe a proposed policy that would be plainly inconsistent with federal law.
Under the Controlled Substances Act, the agency does not have the discretion to "deschedule marijuana altogether."
The justices seem inclined to revise or ditch a 1984 precedent that requires deference to executive agencies' statutory interpretations.
Excessive judicial deference gives administrative agencies a license to rewrite the law in their favor.
The answer is likely "no" for US military action so far, because it is a defense against attack. But a broader conflict or one of much longer duration would be different.
As one appeals court judge pointed out, Trump's defense could literally let a president get away with murder.
His lawyers say no jury can ever consider charges based on his "official acts" as president, which include his efforts to reverse Joe Biden's election.
Ralph Petty's "conflicted dual-hat arrangement" as an advocate and an adjudicator was "utterly bonkers," Judge Don Willett notes.
An important challenge to the use of agency adjudication to enforce federal regulations.
The Arizona Department of Agriculture says all eggs sold must be cage-free, a power that according to the lawsuit belongs to the state legislature.
The Trump administration’s unilateral ban on bump stocks turned owners of those rifle accessories into felons.
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham thinks violent crime gives her a license to rule by decree.
A federal judge objected to two aspects of the agreement that seemed designed to shield Biden from the possibility that his father will lose reelection next year.
The furious response to a seemingly modest reform reflects a broader dispute about the role of courts in a democracy.
The appeals court judge argued that the Israeli Supreme Court had usurped the role of legislators.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch highlights a vital lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Professor Prakash dispatches the arguments for unilateral Presidential authority to disregard the debt ceiling.
The former president reminds us that claiming unbridled executive power is a bipartisan tendency.
The stay is only temporary, and could be quickly lifted. But it's still a negative sign for the plaintiffs in the case.
The papers are for an upcoming conference on the topic of whether federal agency adjudication of private rights should be curbed or ended. There is a $2500 honorarium for authors of selected papers.
The Supreme Court has accepted certiorari in Carnahan v. Maloney to consider whether members of Congress can sue to force disclosure of information from the General Services Administration.
The current debate is a replay of debates we have had before (and will likely have again).
Biden v. Nebraska has far-reaching implications for presidential power.