By Peter M. Shane, the Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law at Ohio State University and author of Madison's Nightmare: How Executive Power Threatens American Democracy (University of Chicago, 2009)
Roughly since the second Reagan administration, separation of powers sophisticates (SOPS) have been held in thrall - whether in joy or dread - by the theory of "the unitary presidency." Its central claim is that the president is constitutionally entitled to direct personally the exercise of any and all discretionary authority that Congress vests in any officer of the executive branch. Say the Center for Disease Control is told to write a pamphlet about AIDS. The president gets to edit it. NASA scientists are supposed to write a report on climate change. The president gets to tell them if global warming is good science. Maybe the Park Service has been given the discretion to limit certain activities in national parks either through the imposition of user fees or the promulgation of regulatory restrictions. The president gets to pick. And so on. Any and all discretionary decision making in the executive branch would be hypothetically subject to presidential control, even in areas of government activity for which Article II gives the president no inherent authority.
A number of fellow academics for whom I have great personal affection and intellectual respect assert (a) that they are constitutional originalists and (b) that unitary executive theory represents the proper reading of the Constitution. As I wrote in MADISON'S NIGHTMARE: HOW EXECUTIVE POWER THREATENS AMERICAN DEMOCRACY (University of Chicago 2009), I don't think these positions can be squared. Eighteenth century ideas of executive power simply did not include centralized policy control over all of public administration.
The idea of the unitary presidency is a very tough one, how
ever, to test in court. One would have to imagine a case in which a party with standing was injured by an administrative action that the relevant officer avowedly undertook for the sole reason that the President ordered her to do so, but which, she confesses, she otherwise would not have pursued. Hard to see that happening. So, we SOPS are left to read other tea leaves, and the tea leaves we read most assiduously appear in Supreme Court opinions on appointments and removals. That is because the Court's conclusions on the president's appointment and removal powers would seem to have some logical connection to its inferences about the president's supervisory powers, as well.
This is the main reason that even those of us who devote little if any time to thinking about securities regulation care about Fair Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 537 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. granted, 77 U.S.L.W. 3625 (U.S. May 18, 2009) (No. 08-861), in which the high court will hear oral argument on December 7.
This case involves the constitutionality of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), which was created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to oversee the activities of public company auditors. It is an odd institutional creature - a nonprofit private corporation that has been given enforcement, adjudication, and rulemaking powers. The members of the PCAOB are appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission - presumably because Congress found them to be "inferior officers" and thus subject to appointment, at Congress's discretion, by the "heads of departments" - and are not directly removable by the president. This is clearly not the unitary executive at work.