In the U.S. legal framework, there is ample precedent for using an executive order or presidential directive to limit intelligence activities and establish safeguards to protect privacy and civil liberties.
Latest in Executive Order
On Jan. 20, President Joe Biden signed an executive order entitled, “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” It establishes the Biden administration’s commitment to immediately work to confront both the causes and impacts of climate change by implementing policy guided by science.
President Trump signed an executive order on April 22 temporarily suspending immigration into the United States in response to the economic crisis caused by COVID-19. The proclamation halts the issuance of green cards for 60 days and applies to individuals who, as of its signing, are outside of the United States, do not have an immigrant visa and do not have official travel documents other than visas. The order contains a range of exceptions, including exemptions for health care professionals, immigrants already in the U.S. and those seeking temporary visas.
On Feb. 11, President Trump issued a new executive order regarding artificial intelligence (AI).
On Feb. 11, the White House released an executive order on “Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence” (AI)—the latest attempt to develop a national strategy for AI.
Last month, a ransomware attack—one of the most far-reaching cyberattacks in history—affected thousands of hospitals, corporations, and other institutions in more than 150 countries. As expected, an attack of this magnitude galvanized calls for action to prevent this kind of event in the future.
On Monday, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision that relied on statutory grounds in declining to vacate most of the preliminary injunction against President Trump’s revised refugee executive order (EO). While a reliance on statutory instead of constitutional grounds is often a calling card of judicial restraint, the methodical tone of the per curiam opinion by the Ninth Circuit panel (consisting of Judges Hawkins, Gould, and Paez) is deceptive.
This post is the fourth part of a five-part series on the Fourth Circuit’s recent en banc decision in IRAP v. Trump. Part I analyzed how the court considered pre- and post-inauguration statements.
This post is the third part of a five-part series on the Fourth Circuit’s recent en banc decision in IRAP v. Trump. Part I analyzed how the court considered pre- and post-inauguration statements.
Analysis of IRAP v. Trump Part II: The Fourth Circuit’s Misuse of Mandel, Din, Lemon, and Town of Greece
This is the second part of a five-part series on the Fourth Circuit’s recent en banc decision in IRAP v. Trump. Part I analyzed the majority’s assessment of Trump and associates’ pre- and post-inauguration statements. This part will analyze how the court marshals the Supreme Court’s precedents concerning standing, the reviewability of immigration decisions, and the Establishment Clause.