Article II, Executive Power Flashcards
Youngstown Sheet and Tube (limits on exec power) Facts and Holding
Facts: Truman took charge of the steel mills by executive order
Holding, Justice Black: The Constitution charges the Executive with “faithfully executing the laws,” not making the laws themselves. That is reserved for the legislature.
The Youngstown Zones used to determine if the President is acting within their power
Justice Jackson’s famous concurrence breaks the actions of the President into three categories.
The President’s power is greatest with the first, and weakest with the third.
- Express or implied authorization from Congress
- Congress is silent (court never really puts things here, because you wouldn’t know how things would shake out)
- Direct contradiction to the express or implied will of Congress
Clinton v. City of New York (zone 1, but nevertheless unconstitutional) Facts, Rule, and Dissent
Facts: The Line Item Veto Act gave the President the power to cancel provisions of laws.
Rule:
1. The cancellation procedures in the act violate the Presentment Clause of the Constitution
2. “Under the Presentment Clause, a bill that passes both Houses must be presented to the president before it becomes law. The president may either sign it if he approves or return (veto) it if he does not. It gives him no authority to amend or repeal.”
Dissenters: this is unconstitutional under separation of powers, not the presentment clause, because lawmaking is reserved for Congress.
United States v. Curtis Wright (Zone 1) Facts and Rule
Congress passed law allowing pres to stop the sale of arms to those involved with the Chaco Border Dispute. Roosevelt issued exec order.
Rule: An otherwise unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive may nevertheless be sustained on the ground that its exclusive goal is to provide relief in a foreign conflict.
Dames and Moore v. Reagan (zone 1, implied authorization) Facts and Rule
Facts
Executive order requiring the transfer of all pending civil cases against Iran to a tribunal
Rule: The President of the United States has authority to settle judicial claims through an executive order if the settlement of claims is
1. necessary for the resolution of a major foreign-policy dispute with another country, and
2. if Congress acquiesces in the president’s action (even in silence)
Lucia v. SEC - officers of the executive must be appointed; Facts, Rule, and Holding
Facts:
1. SEC judge found Lucia violated federal investment law
2. Lucia argued SEC administrative law judges were officers of the US, and therefore needed to be appointed by the president or head of the SEC
3. The SEC left the task of appointing administrative-law judges to staff members.
Rule: An individual working for the federal government is an Officer of the United States who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause if the individual has (1) a continuing position established by law and (2) exercises significant authority pursuant to law.
Holding: SEC admin judges are officers
United States v. Arthrex Inc. - no final decisions from inferior officers; Facts and Rules
- Patent review board members declared by Congress to be inferior officers
- Director of the Patent Trademark Office assigned the board cases, but did not have authority to “review, direct, and supervise” the board
Rules
1. An inferior officer may not issue final decisions on behalf of the executive branch.
2. The exercise of executive power by inferior officers must, at some level, be subject to the direction and supervision of an officer nominated by the President and confirmed by the senate.
Seila Law v. CFPB; Facts, Rule, and Policy
Facts
1. The CFPB issued Seila Law a demand to produce certain evidence for an investigation.
2. Seila Law refused to comply, claiming that the agency’s structure violated the Constitution’s separation-of-powers doctrine.
Rule: It is a violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine for an administrative agency to be headed by a single director not removable by the president at will.
Policy Reasoning: To hold otherwise would allow the director to act unilaterally without oversight
Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB - no “multi-level protections” for executive officers; Facts and Rule
- PCAOB board members could only be fired for cause by SEC commissioners
- SEC commissioners could also only be fired by the President for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
- Accounting firm under investigation by PCAOB claims the organization is unconstitutionally protected from removal
Rule: A President may not be restricted in his ability to remove a principal officer, who is in turn restricted in his ability to remove an inferior officer, because such multi-level protection from removal prevents the President from fulfilling his Article II duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.
Bowsher v. Synar - Congress can not maintain removal power over executive officials; Facts and Rule
- Congress passed a law to reduce the Federal deficit authorizing the Comptroller General to recommend mandatory budget cuts to be executed by the President
- Congress maintained removal power over the comptroller general
Rule: Under the doctrine of separation of powers, Congress may not retain removal power over officials charged with executing the laws except by impeachment.
United States v. Nixon; Rule and takeaways
Rule: A presidential claim of privilege asserting only a generalized interest in confidentiality is not sufficient to overcome the judicial interest in producing all relevant evidence in a criminal case.
Takeaways:
1. The President cannot refuse to comply with an enforcement action brought by a judge, or
2. exercise absolute control over a special prosecutor
Clinton v. Jones; Rule
Rule: The United States Constitution does not grant the President of the United States immunity from civil litigation involving actions committed before entering office.
Trump v. Mazars
Rule: The House of Representatives has the power to subpoena a president’s records if it specifically states why the records are needed.
Morrison v. Olson
R: SCOTUS upheld the independent counsel law. “It’s fine for congress to pass a law placing enforcement power in the hands of someone who can’t be fired by the executive and it’s fine for the courts to appoint that person.”
