//  6/14/17  //  Commentary

This morning I published an op-ed in The Guardian discussing Emoluments Clause lawsuits filed by CREW, DC & Maryland, and 196 Members of Congress.  I touch on both standing and merits issues, and set the cases in a broader framework.

Here's an excerpt from the introduction:

When President Donald Trump announced his Muslim Ban on January 27, pandemonium erupted. Lawyers everywhere raced to airports. Galvanized by Trump’s threat to liberty, they rapidly assembled legal theories and commenced a still-unbroken siege of Trump’s bigoted policy. As attorneys stockpiled caffeine, the American people rallied by moonlight outside terminals and federal courts.

The legal response to Trump’s Emoluments Clause violations has taken shape more slowly. And understandably so. Until recently, most Americans had never heard of “emoluments.” Only in the past few months – aided by creative public artand a high-profile lawsuit – has the public come to appreciate that Trump’s conflicts are forbidden by the Constitution.

It’s no coincidence that this arcane issue has newfound salience. We’re now witnessing kleptocracy on an unprecedented scale in America. And there’s barely even a fig leaf of cover. Trump has openly enmeshed his private financial interests in national policy. To say that this creates an appearance of corruption would be far too polite. This is the real deal: sketchy dealings all the way down.

Until recently, a rough bipartisan consensus would have thwarted such open corruption. But it’s now clear that the Republican Party has made a deal with the Devil, trading integrity (their own and the government’s) for a shot at long-held dreams. Surprising nobody, the Devil is already far ahead in this stupid, crooked bargain.

But if recent events are any sign, the public will not stand idly by as Trump turns our nation into a banana republic ... 

You can read the full op-ed here.


The Real Problem with Seila

8/24/20  //  In-Depth Analysis

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that tenure protection for the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutional. The decision’s reasoning may be more important—and worrisome—than the holding itself.

Zachary Price

U.C. Hastings College of the Law

Roberts’ Rules: How the Chief Justice Could Rein in Police Abuse of Power 

8/19/20  //  In-Depth Analysis

A theme of Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinions this past term is that courts should not employ open-ended balancing tests to protect fundamental constitutional rights. Yet there is one area of the Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisprudence that is rife with such amorphous balancing tests: policing. It is long past time for the Court to revisit this area of law.

The Federal Judiciary Needs More Former Public Defenders

8/3/20  //  Commentary

By Orion de Nevers: The composition of President Trump’s record-setting number of judicial appointments has been widely criticized for its overwhelmingly white-male skew. But another, quieter, source of troubling homogeneity has also emerged: President Trump is loading the bench with former prosecutors.

Take Care