Separation of Powers and Federalism

  • April 6, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Alan B. Morrison, the Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law; Professional Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School

    The area near the border between Texas and Mexico is a dangerous one, especially if you are a liberal Democrat from the North trying to deal with about 11.3 million individuals who are not lawfully in the United States, when the budget and the personnel to operate existing systems will not enable you to deport more than 400,000 a year. And judging from the February 16 opinion in Texas v. United States by District Judge Andrew Hanen, who sits in the Brownsville Federal Court located there, the courthouse is not a safe place to be either.

    Judge Hanen’s ruling, which runs 123 pages and was followed by a three-page preliminary injunction, has so much in it that it is impossible to do more in an essay like this than to summarize the key points. Meanwhile, the Federal Government has appealed and is seeking a stay in the Fifth Circuit, which will be heard on April 17. But first, let’s start with what Judge Hanen did and then take a look at the appellate posture. 

    The first step is to recognize who in the Executive Branch did what that precipitated the lawsuit. Although the popular notion is that it was a decision of President Obama that was being challenged, the President did not issue an executive order or anything else to bring about these changes: he left those to the Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeb Johnson.  This choice may actually matter here because the flaw that Judge Hanen identified – failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) – applies only to agency officials, which excludes the President. 

    Secretary Johnson, acting with at least the president’s blessing, if not at his direction, created a new program for parents of children lawfully in the United States – Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Aliens (DAPA) – and expanded the existing program for children – Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).  Each has two major components.  First, they direct agency officials not to deport otherwise deportable aliens who fall into certain categories whose presence in the U.S. does not present significant dangers to the country, mainly parents of others authorized to be in the U.S. Second, they authorize the estimated 4.3 million individuals who fall in each category to receive federal work authorizations, which aliens need to obtain a legal job, as well as other benefits that flow from being authorized to work. The legal issues for the two parts are different, but before turning to those questions, there is the ever-present and often devilish issue of standing or, in lay language, what says you have a right to sue over this claim?

  • March 11, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Raph Graybill, Fellow, Yale Institution for Social and Policy Studies (ISPS)

    This spring, western state legislatures will consider a series of laws demanding the end of public land management by the federal government.  The bills, which evoke the “Sagebrush Rebellion” anti-conservation movement of the 1970s, issue a state-law “demand” that the United States relinquish its title to American public lands and transfer ownership to states.

    Nearly two years after Utah passed its “Transfer of Public Lands Act” (TPLA), similar laws are under consideration in a majority of western states.  At stake is the core of American conservation policy.  Under state ownership, state governments could restrict public access, authorize commercial development or even divide lands for private sale.  Current federal environmental law effectively forecloses these possibilities, limiting privatization and preventing environmental degradation.

    Other outlets have addressed the policy wisdom of transfer demand laws, but very little work has been devoted to understanding their constitutional validity.  This post will address the legal arguments behind transfer demands with an eye toward understanding both the Constitution’s text and a newer, nontextual argument advanced by supporters.

    A legal analysis of transfer demands begins with the Constitution itself, and the plain text of the Constitution speaks directly to transfer demand laws.  The Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, cl. 2, states, “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.”  The text leaves little room for ambiguity over who may make decisions affecting United States land: Only Congress may initiate the sale or transfer of federal public lands.

  • December 9, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Vikram David Amar writes at Verdict why the federalism lessons of the 2012 Affordable Care Act case weaken the argument in King v. Burwell.

    In Reuters, Joan Biskupic, Janet Roberts, and John Shiffman consider the small group of elite lawyers that dominate the Supreme Court docket.

    Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic writes about applying the “broken windows” theory to the police.

    At Bloomberg View, Noah Feldman reviews the recent Supreme Court case on Amtrak that considers how much lawmaking authority Congress can delegate to other bodies.

  • December 4, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Neil Kinkopf, Professor of Law, Georgia State University. He also serves on the Georgia Lawyer Chapter Board of Advisors.

    The predictable calls for impeachment went up after President Obama announced his actions on immigration last week. To the surprise of no one, the calls issued exclusively from the president’s Republican detractors. Such partisan calls for impeachment are easily dismissed. In a recent New York Times op-ed, however, Professor Peter Schuck of the Yale Law School lent credibility to the legal basis for these claims, arguing that the president’s action satisfies the constitutional predicate for impeachment (though he advocates that Congress exercise its discretion to decline impeachment).  His argument is worthy of attention, though it fails utterly. 

    The Constitution sets forth the grounds for impeachment:  “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  Nowhere in the document, however, is the phrase “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” defined. This absence of a legal definition has led some to conclude that the House of Representatives may impeach for any reason at all. Then-Congressman Gerald Ford gave this idea its most famous articulation:  “an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history ….”  Professor Schuck falls squarely in this camp, declaring “it is pretty much up to Congress to define and apply ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’” 

    This Nietzschean view (Law is dead, therefore all is permitted) is deeply flawed. Most significantly, it is at odds with the original understanding of the impeachment power. The framers adopted the language “high crimes and misdemeanors” precisely to avoid leaving it “pretty much up to Congress” to decide for itself what constitutes an impeachable offense. During the drafting convention, George Mason suggested that the president be impeachable for “maladministration.” James Madison objected to this formulation on the grounds that it would undermine the independence of the president: “[s]o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.” The constitutional convention then settled on the familiar “high crimes and misdemeanors” language as a way of making sure the standard for impeachment would not be infinitely malleable. 

  • November 18, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    On the Melissa Harris-Perry Show, Janai Nelson and Amy Howe consider the new Affordable Care Act challenge and how Justice Scalia could be the deciding factor.

    Leslie Griffin writes at Hamilton & Griffin on Rights on how the recent opinion of Judge Cornelia Pillard of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Priests for Life v. HHS explains why women’s equality is not a radical idea.

    Reuben Guttman writes in the International Business Times that the U.S. midterm elections were all about money but had very little substance.

    In The Washington Post, Andrea Peterson looks at the right of citizens to record the police.

    Geoffrey R. Stone argues in the Huffington Post that Senate should approve the USA Freedom Act in order to address the issues raised by the NSA’s surveillance program.