Ganesh Sitaraman is a Professor of Law at Vanderbilt Law School and a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. His new book is The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens Our Republic.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
On March 22, President Trump announced that his administration would impose draconian tariffs on a wide range of Chinese products, as well as restrictions on Chinese investments in the United States.
The focus of the travel ban litigation has shifted back to the federal district courts after Monday’s decision to dismiss Trump v. Hawaii as moot.
When most people think about regulations, they think about health, safety, and environmental rules. As part of their efforts to deregulate in these areas, the House of Representatives has passed sweeping bills that would completely transform the process that every federal agency uses to issue regulations: the Regulatory Accountability Act and the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act.
The common denominator of nettlesome war powers questions is who should make the difficult and freighted decisions about whether the nation goes to war, how it fights a war, and when it ends a war. Surprisingly, however, scholars and commentators rarely (if ever) discuss how psychological research on decisionmaking impacts the constitutional design and doctrine around war powers issues. In the last four decades, psychologists have demonstrated systematic biases in individual and group decisionmaking processes.
Is foreign relations law really so different from the law governing domestic affairs? Should it be? We have a new article out this week in the Harvard Law Review that engages these questions in the context of the arc of foreign relations law over the last quarter-century.
Many, if not most, scholars believe that exceptionalism — the belief that legal issues arising from foreign relations are functionally, doctrinally, and even methodologically distinct from those arising in domestic policy — has defined foreign relations law.
Last fall, during the debate on airstrikes in Syria, commentators argued that the United States needed to act in order to preserve the credibility of American threats.