Debates over the proper scope of executive power in the United States have been a feature of U.S. law and politics dating back to before the nation’s founding. Article II of the Constitution vests the president with “the executive power” and the power to act as the military’s Commander in Chief, but the post-9/11 presidency has been characterized as a striking expansion of executive power, particularly in the area of national security.
Latest in Executive Power
On Monday, Judge Dabney Friedrich of the the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled against a motion challenging the constitutionality of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment. The full order is below:
A little-noticed Watergate-era opinion addresses “Presidential Amenability to Judicial Subpoenas.”
Two complementary articles in the most recent issue of the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics assess the role of the president’s legal advisers in times of crisis.
On Aug. 2, Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia affirmed the constitutionality of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's appointment under the Appointments Clause, denying a witness's motion to quash subpoenas issued by the special counsel's office.
On July 26, a bipartisan coalition of senators introduced legislation that would require congressional approval for any effort to withdraw the United States from NATO. The bill also authorizes counsel to litigate any effort to withdraw absent its consent. The document is available in full below:
Can President Trump really end U.S. participation in the alliance? And if so, what can Congress do about it?
A D.C. Circuit opinion from today suggests that the former national security advisors may have a right to challenge the revocation of their security clearances on First Amendment grounds.
The three scenarios that might play out if Trump moves against Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Rice and Hayden.
The Supreme Court’s recent Lucia opinion may have unsettled the line in Morrison v. Olson distinguishing between an “officer of the United States” and an “Employee of the United States.”
Many of the those arguing that overruling Morrison v. Olson wouldn’t impact Mueller’s independence have cited Morrison as the basis for arguing against a bill intended to reaffirm Mueller’s independence.