//  11/12/18  //  Commentary

In a new Washington Post op-ed, I criticize DOJ's recent flood of petitions seeking "emergency" Supreme Court intervention in cases challenging Trump Administration policies. Here's the introduction:

The Justice Department has implemented a new strategy for defending President Trump’s most controversial policies: Declare an urgent threat to the executive branch, bypass ordinary judicial procedure and rush straight to the Supreme Court. Over the past few weeks, it has made this move in cases involving climate change, immigration, the 2020 Census and Trump’s ban on military service by transgender people. The department’s aggressive tactics rest on a rather overt calculation that the court’s right-leaning majority will nearly always side with the administration — and that five justices will repeatedly bend the rules to kill cases against Trump.    

 It seems unlikely that a majority of the Supreme Court is enthusiastic about this development. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is deeply committed to preserving confidence in the court as a branch of government that speaks “for the Constitution,” not “one party.” That concern also appears in statements by many of his colleagues. As Justice Elena Kagan has observed, “It’s an incredibly important thing for the court to guard — this reputation of being fair, of being impartial, of being neutral, and of not being some extension of the terribly polarized political process and environment that we live in.”

By treating the Supreme Court as a willing ally rather than a neutral arbiter, Trump’s lawyers are encouraging a dangerously cynical view of an institution whose public legitimacy is its very lifeblood. Worse, by filing a slew of irregular petitions that require immediate action, the department is forcing the court to navigate a political minefield.

Read more here


Another Legally Questionable Acting Official Who’s Not Wasting Any Time Before Making Big Decisions

1/15/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

Joe Otting, the new Acting Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, has a questionable entitlement to powers that he's already misusing.

Brianne J. Gorod

Constitutional Accountability Center

Barr’s Remarks Are Reassuring but Serious Questions Remain

1/15/19  //  Latest Developments

Barr's carefully-worded promise not to interfere with Mueller is welcome. But it also leaves room for Barr to impede significant parts of Mueller's work.

Andrew Coan

University of Arizona

An Inside Job? The Uneasy Case for Outside Special Prosecutors

1/15/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

Should special prosecutors come from within the administration or outside it? This is a harder question than you might think.

Daniel Hemel

University of Chicago Law School