Andrew Kent is a professor at Fordham University School of Law and holds the John D. Feerick Research Chair.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
An important debate is happening at Lawfare and elsewhere about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s application of the obstruction of justice statutes to conduct by President Trump. Jack Goldsmith argues that Mueller’s analysis of the obstruction statutes does not stand up to close scrutiny. Benjamin Wittes argues that it does.
Writing here at Lawfare in the early days of the Trump administration, Benjamin Wittes and Quinta Jurecic zeroed in on a central dilemma of this presidency: What happens when the occupant of the office is unable to sincerely and credibly swear the constitutional oath, required by Article II, to “faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States”?
I appreciate Robert Litt's response to my recent Lawfare piece, which raised the possibility of Congress giving the FBI independence from presidential control by means of statutory for-cause limits on removal of the director.
Although Christopher Wray seems like a reasonable choice to lead the FBI, appointing a decent new director will do little to cure the terrible damage done by President Trump’s dismissal of James Comey in the middle of his ten-year term because Trump disliked the FBI’s pursuit of the Russia investigations.
During a back-and-forth on Lawfare with Steve Vladeck a few months ago, I suggested that Hernandez v.
Concerns about the role and conduct of President Trump’s personal defense lawyer for the Russia investigations, Marc Kasowitz of Kasowitz Benson & Torres LLP, have previously been raised at Lawfare.
A Civil War-era decision about military commission trials took center stage in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s en banc decision last week upholding a district court injunction against President Trump’s second travel ban. The very first sentence of the Fourth Circuit’s majority opinion declares: