Separation of Powers

Question 1

Youngstown

Answer 1

In the midst of the Korean War, the steel industry threatened a strike. The President then seized the entire steel industry because steel production was critical to the war effort.
The Court held that the President could not seize private industries under either his constitutional or congressional authority.

Question 2

Youngstown Framework

Answer 2

Justice Jackson’s concurrence set forth a three prong framework for analyzing the Executive Power.

1. Congressional approval
2. Congressional silence
3. Congressional disapproval

Question 3

Dames & Moore

Answer 3

The Court held that the President had the authority to suspend all pending litigation against Iran in order to stop the Iran Hostage Crisis. The Court held that this action fell within the “Congressional Silence” category set forth by Justice Jackson.
Moreover, because the power was a foreign relations power, the President has more discretion.

Question 4

Curtiss-Wright

Answer 4

Court allowed the President to assume some law-making power in deciding with what countries arms trades should be made illegal. The foreign power is more expansive than the domestic power. The President has better knowledge of foreign affairs

Question 5

Goldwater v. Curtis

Answer 5

The Court refused to decide whether the President could unilaterally withdraw the country from a treaty without the Senate. The Court held that the question was a political question best determined by the political process.

Question 6

U.S. v. Nixon

Answer 6

The prosecutor in the case requested tapes from the Oval Office and Nixon refused to release them, claiming privilege.
The Court held that this was not a political question because this was an Article III criminal proceeding. Therefore, there was no textually demonstrable commitment to another branch.
There is no automatic or absolute privilege. Specific need for the privilege must be shown

Question 7

Nixon v. Fitzgerald

Answer 7

Nixon was sued by a DOD employee who claimed that he was fired in retaliation for whistle-blowing. Nixon asserted that he was immune from suit.
The Court agreed and granted the President absolute immunity from civil suits, reasoning that immunity was necessary to prevent the chilling effect of litigation from interfering with his duties

Question 8

Clinton v. Jones

Answer 8

The President was sued for alleged sexual misconduct that occurred before he took office. The President argued that the absolute immunity granted in Fitzgerald extends to acts committed before he took office.
The Court held that the immunity did not extend this far because none of the traditional justifications for immunity are present.
No chilling effect or burden on his duties.

Question 9

Panama Refining

Answer 9

Congress gave the President the authority to prohibit the transportation of petroleum across state lines that have been produced in excess of state quotas, and to make such prohibited transportation a federal crime.
The Court held that Congress had exceeded its authority to delegate because Congress didn’t set forth any specific constraints on the President’s authority. Congress must make the policy choices, not the President.

Question 10

Schecter Poultry

Answer 10

Congress authorized the President to approve “codes of fair competition.”
The Court held that this was an unconstitutional delegation because Congress did not define “fair competition.” Congress must set forth some intelligible principle to guide executive power.

Question 11

Whitman

Answer 11

The Clean Air Act required the EPA to promulgate air quality standards that are requisite to protect public health.
The Court held that this was sufficient to meet the “intelligible principle” standard.

Question 12

Mistrella

Answer 12

Congress gave the Sentencing Commission authority to set sentencing guidelines. Congress set forth its goals, purposes, and directions to consider specific factors in creating the guideline system. The Court held that this broad policy was sufficient.

Question 13

INS v. Chadha

Answer 13

Statute gave the executive the power to administer regulations, subject to a legislative veto.
The Court held that the legislative veto was unconstitutional because it is in conflict with the presentment and bicameralism requirements of Article I.
The action taken here was legislative in purpose, and the Constitution provides that all legislation must pass through both houses of Congress and be signed into law by the President. Article II sets forth the only instances in which a house of Congress can act alone, this is not one of them.

Question 14

Clinton v. NY

Answer 14

Congress gave the President the power to veto certain elements of a bill without striking the entire law if the provision struck was a budgeting, spending, or taxing provision and the President determines that striking the provision will reduce the budget deficit without impairing essential government functions. Congress could override a line-item veto.
The Court held that this violated the Presentment clause because it is more than discretion to spend, but changing the text of enacted laws.

Question 15

Myers

Answer 15

Myers was appointed to a term of four years as Portland post master, with removal subject to the approval of the Senate. The President removed Myers without the consent of Senate and this action ensued.
The Court held that the President has the sole power of removal, adhering to the unitary executive theory.

Question 16

Humprey’s Executor

Answer 16

President Hoover appointed the commissioner of the FTC. The FTC Act provided that the commissioner of the FTC may only be removed for cause. President Roosevelt later removed the commissioner based on the difference in policy views.
The Court held that the FTC Act did not unconstitutionally infringe on the President’s powers.
It distinguished Myers on the basis that the FTC commissioner, unlike a post master, performs more than just a purely executive function. An FTC commissioner is a quasi-judicial, quasi-legislative official within the Executive branch, and therefore, the President’s unqualified removal power does not extend to this official.

Question 17

Morrison

Answer 17

Act provides for judges on the Special Division to appoint independent counsel to prosecute high-ranking government officials.
The Court held that this scheme was constitutional, and that the for-cause removal of the independent counsel was also constitutional because the for-cause removal power does not impede the Present’s ability to perform his duties.
The question of whether the official was “purely executive” or “quasi-judicial/legislative” was aimed at determining whether the President’s ability to perform his duties was being hindered.

Question 18

PCAOB

Answer 18

The President was only permitted to fire SEC Commissioners for cause, and SEC Commissioners can only fire members of the PCAOB for cause as well.
The Court held that this scheme was unconstitutional because this extra layer is a per se violation of the Executive vesting clause.

Question 19

Noel Canning

Answer 19

The President appointed officials to the NLRB during a 3-day intra-session recess. The Court held that this appointment was unlawful because the recess was too short.
The dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia maintained that it is not the length of the break that is relevant, but whether the recess was an intra or inter-session recess. Justice Scalia maintained that only inter-session recesses permit recess appointments.