Executive power

  • August 14, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Peter M. Shane, the Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law, Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law

    Headlines often describe President Obama as “going it alone” on public policy in light of congressional inaction.  But his boldest moves in favor of workers’ rights are rooted in an obscure statute enacted 65 years ago – the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (FPASA).  That statute’s explicit purpose is to establish “an economical and efficient system for . . . [p]rocuring and supplying property and nonpersonal services” for the federal government.”  Most important, it specifically empowers the President to “prescribe policies and directives that the President considers necessary to carry out” FPASA’s purposes.

    In late July, President Obama issued two important orders resting directly on his FPASA authority. Executive Order 13672 adds to the prohibitions on employment discrimination by federal contractors a ban on discrimination based on “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”  Executive Order 13673 imposes a variety of measures to insure that federal contractors comply with state and federal labor laws. It further prohibits employers with federal contracts worth $1 million or more from insisting on the mandatory arbitration of worker complaints dealing with sexual assault or harassment or with claims arising under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Last February, the President issued Executive Order 13658, imposing a higher minimum wage requirement on federal contractors, as well.

    These orders have important precedents. President Kennedy relied on FPASA to prohibit race discrimination by federal contractors, a requirement amplified by President Johnson. President Nixon relied on FPASA to require federal contractors to engage in affirmative action to achieve equality in employment. President Carter used FPASA to impose a temporary system of wage and price controls on federal contractors. President Bush required federal contractors to inform employees of their right not to join a union. These orders have all been upheld in court.

  • August 8, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Raha Wala, Senior Counsel, Defense & Intelligence, Human Rights First

    Last week President Obama admitted what most people have long known—that, in the president’s words, “we tortured some folks” after 9/11 in a bid to thwart future terrorist plots.  The president was referring to a soon-to-be released report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) that documents the CIA’s use of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment at secret “black sites” around the world in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. But the CIA has resisted and even undermined oversight on this critical issue from the beginning. And now current and former CIA leaders appear poised to mount a “counterattack” to undermine the report’s key findings and defend the so-called “enhanced interrogation” program. President Obama can’t let that happen.  He should direct members of his administration, including CIA Director Brennan, to get in line with the anti-torture policy he laid out when he—as one of his first official acts as president—signed an Executive Order shuttering the CIA black sites and banning torture and other forms of cruel treatment. 

    The SSCI report is the result of a five-year inquiry into the CIA rendition, detention and interrogation program; it began when the committee discovered that the CIA had disregarded warnings from the White House and destroyed videotapes of waterboarding and other brutal torture sessions. The report—a voluminous account, at 6,700 pages—is based on a review of more than 6 million pages of official documents, and is said to conclude that interrogations in the CIA program were much more widespread and brutal than previously known, and much less effective at gathering intelligence to stop terrorist plots than proponents of so-called “enhanced interrogation” claim. The report will show, for example, how the interrogation program played no meaningful role in gathering intelligence to help discover Osama Bin Laden’s whereabouts. It is also said to document how the CIA systematically misled Congress, the Department of Justice, and the White House about the effectiveness of the program. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chair of the SSCI, has called the investigation into the CIA’s use of torture one of the most significant in the history of the United States Senate, and the most important oversight activity ever conducted by the SSCI. The executive summary, findings and conclusions of the SSCI report—about 600 pages of material—are set to be released in the coming weeks.

  • August 7, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    David Firestone writes in The New York Times about the myth of large-scale voter fraud. New research from Justin Levitt, Co-Faculty Advisor for the Loyola Law School, Los Angeles ACS Student Chapter, shows that voter impersonation almost never happens and raises serious questions about motivation behind voter ID laws. In June 2012, Levitt wrote an ACS issue brief entitled “The New Wave of Election Regulation.”

    Charles Lane of The Washington Post compares the immigration reform President Obama is contemplating to the Emancipation Proclamation. Not since 1862 “has a president considered ordering a more sweeping adjustment to membership in the American community.”

    New data from the Pew Research Center shows shifting opinions of the Supreme Court among Americans, including a growing number of individuals who view the court as conservative. 

    Dennis Henigan writes in Politico about the “Jim Brady effect” and the current state of the gun-control movement.

    The National Commission on Voting Rights released a new report showing continued voter discrimination against African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans throughout the United States.

  • June 26, 2014

    by Jeremy Leaming

    ACS will conduct its annual Supreme Court review tomorrow covering most of the high-profile cases that have come down this term and looking ahead to Monday when more opinions are expected. We are still waiting for opinions in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, regarding the contraception policy of the Affordable Care Act, and Harris v. Quinn, a case involving a First Amendment challenge to union representation of state home care workers.

    The high court today issued opinions in NLRB v. Noel Canning, involving the president’s recess appointments power, and McCullen v.Coakley, centering on a First Amendment challenge to a Massachusetts law creating buffer zones around abortion clinics.

    SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein, who will moderate tomorrow’s ACS Supreme Court Review, said of Noel Canning during live-tweeting at SCOTUSblog this morning:

    Here is the upshot of the decision. The President can make a recess appointment without Senate confirmation when the Senate says it is in recess. But either the House or the Senate can take the Senate out of recess and force it to hold a "pro forma session" that will block any recess appointment. So while the President's recess appointment power is broad in theory, if either house of Congress is in the hands of the other party, it can be blocked.

    Eric J. Segall, the Kathy and Lawrence Ashe Professor of Law at Georgia State University College of Law, also a panelist for tomorrow’s high court review, told ACSblog, “When is a recess not a recess? When it’s less than 10 days. Justices issue a mixed ruling in NLRB v. Noel Canning.”

    Chief Counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center Elizabeth Wydra in press statement said, “While the Supreme Court voted unanimously to strike down the particular exercise of the Recess Appointments Clause power in the Noel Canning case, more important, the Court – by a sharply divided 5-4 vote – rejected the sweeping arguments made by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its allies.” (Wydra is also scheduled to participate in tomorrow’s ACS Supreme Court Review.)

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled early last year that President Obama’s appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in early 2012 during “pro forma sessions,” where Congress took deliberate steps to shorten the period for the president to make recess appointments. The president took the action noting that the 5-member NLRB could not function with three languishing vacancies.

  • June 26, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Peter M. Shane, the Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law, Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law. This piece is cross-posted on RegBlog, where it was originially published.

    As losses go, NLRB v. Noel Canning is going to be pretty easy for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and future presidents to live with.

    In a 5-to-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Article II’s Recess Appointments Clause empowers presidents to fill vacancies that occur at any time and during any recess—intra-session or intersession—of sufficient length. The Court did invalidate President Obama’s January, 2012, recess appointments of three NLRB members, but only on a narrow two-part rationale. First, a series of pro forma Senate sessions held between December 17, 2011, and January 23, 2012, were effective in dividing this 37-day break into periods of adjournment no longer than three days. Second, periods of intra-session adjournment shorter than 10 days are “presumptively” too short to count as recesses that trigger the president’s recess appointments power. (There is some ambiguity in the majority opinion whether the 10-day rule now applies even to intersession adjournments, which, as far as I know, no party ever argued.) Because of the pro forma sessions – which the D.C. Circuit had not addressed at all – the NLRB owes the Noel Canning Co. a do-over in its unfair labor practice proceeding.

    All in all, it was a good day for the legacy of Chief Justice John Marshall. The majority eschewed implausible claims for the supposed clarity of plainly ambiguous constitutional text, in favor of a constitutional reading that was guided by a history of interbranch practice. Marshall would have approved the Court’s framing of the intra- versus inter-session recess problem:

    The question is not: Did the Founders at the time think about intra-session recesses? Perhaps they did not. The  question is: Did the Founders intend to restrict the scope of the Clause to the form of congressional recess then prevalent, or did they intend a broader scope permitting the Clause to apply, where appropriate, to somewhat changed circumstances? The Founders knew they were writing a document designed to apply to ever-changing circumstances over centuries. After all, a Constitution is “intended to endure for ages to come,” and must adapt itself to a future that can only be “seen dimly,” if at all …We therefore think the Framers likely did intend the Clause to apply to a new circumstance that so clearly falls within its essential purposes, where doing so is consistent with the Clause’s language.

    In short, pragmatism trumped an overconfident textualism.