In an earlier article titled The Executive Power of Removal, we contended that Article II gives the President a constitutional power to remove executive officers, at least those who are presidentially appointed. In this Essay, we expand on, and reply to a critique of, that article. We discuss the meaning of the clause vesting “executive Power” in the President and the clause authorizing Congress to make laws “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the powers of the federal government. We contend that the former vests authority to remove in the President and the latter does not allow Congress to treat that allocation of authority as a default. We discuss how constitutional developments in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania—specifically, a 1784 report authored by the Council of Censors—support our understanding of the federal Constitution’s text and structure. We also discuss early practice under the federal Constitution—specifically, high-profile instances where presidents removed executive subordinates without Senate participation. These sources and episodes, along with those we discussed in our previous article, support the conclusion that the Constitution confers on the President the authority to remove presidentially appointed executive officers.
Although the U.S. Constitution is widely described as lacking enforceable social rights, a recent line of cases from the Ninth Circuit recognizes a...
After an impatient wait, the U.S. Supreme Court finally handed down its opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the tariffs case, on Friday, Feb...
At points in American history, there have been significant, even massive shifts in constitutional understandings, doctrines, and practices. Apparently...
Many disdain the use of consequences in legal interpretation. Yet it turns out that interpreters have long used consequences, particularly...
Article II of the Constitution says that “[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Of course, the...
Until he joined the U.S. government in 1934, Robert H. Jackson had been a lawyer in private practice in Upstate New York who was admitted to the bar...
Earlier this year, President Donald Trump suggested that there could be “an interesting problem” with the Treasury market that would justify non...
Few constitutional issues have been as significant to the first 100 days of the second Trump Administration as the question whether the President may...
Constitutional scholars have long observed that the term “constitutional crisis” is overused. Pundits and scholars routinely use it to describe...
A distinct set of six institutions and traditions makes the country hard to subjugate to an authoritarian’s will.
For the over half-million people currently homeless in the United States, the U.S. Constitution has historically provided little help: it is strongly...
Trump v. United States’s discovery of broad immunity has rendered the presidency more imperial and unaccountable. This Article tackles four questions...
Comparative constitutional law is a thriving field of legal scholarship, and Chinese law is not doing badly either, at least if measured against the...
The Founders were not textualists. The letter of the law mattered quite a bit. But, as William Blackstone noted, interpretation also required the...
In April, President Trump imposed tariffs on imports from every nation in the world, claiming an emergency warranted those new taxes. He called it...
Leaders often try to amend constitutions to remove checks on their powers. To help protect against such democratic erosion, constitutional drafters...
Over the last decade, the Supreme Court has revolutionized the law of religious freedom. At this point, the picture is reasonably clear. The Court has...
Comparative Constitutional Law and Politics: Analysis, Cases, and Materials is the first interdisciplinary casebook for the field, offering students...