Source: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/transcending-the-youngstown-triptych
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:45:29+00:00

Document:
The time is ripe for a reappraisal of the separation of powers as the organizing principle of our federal government. Most of the relevant doctrinal architecture has been constructed over the past seven decades. Perhaps because of Justice Robert H. Jackson’s incomparable brilliance as a writer, the two-dimensional landscape famously described in his concurring opinion condemning President Truman’s seizure of the U.S. steel industry has dominated discourse about the interaction of the three federal branches. Charting presidential conduct on the vertical axis of a map whose horizontal axis measures Congress’s position ranging from approval to disapproval gave Jackson an elegantly simple and memorable way to classify presidential actions from the most strongly defensible to the most constitutionally vulnerable.
The resulting classification scheme became a convenient triptych describing the geography of a “flatland” constitutional universe—one constructed in a two-dimensional space, carved into three simple zones. Missing from that triptych has been an analytical guide for navigating what is in truth the multidimensional universe of relevant constitutional values and relationships. This Essay sets out a proposed approach to developing such a guide.
If the polls are to be believed, we may well face another four years of divided government, which means the Court will get no break from high-profile separation-of-powers disputes once a new President and a ninth Justice are finally installed.19 The reconstituted Court will likely continue to take an active role, rather than a role of pragmatic abstention and avoidance, in resolving disputes between the political branches—a role more consistent with the Court’s general duty to interpret the Constitution and laws of the United States when the lives or liberties of individuals depend on their meaning.
Since Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has emphatically insisted on the judicial duty to “say what the law is.”20 This baseline conception has at times been invoked not only to assert the federal judiciary’s obligation and authority to invalidate legislative and executive actions deemed inconsistent with the Constitution, but also—and I think unjustifiably—to preclude Congress from playing a supplementary interpretive role in protecting what those branches deem to be rights guaranteed by constitutional amendments empowering Congress to enforce their substantive provisions.
The surface elegance of that concurring opinion contributed to its mesmerizing appeal. But despite its rhetorical power and seemingly clear categorical lines, the Youngstown framework actually provides precious little guidance in some of the hardest separation-of-powers cases: those involving executive action in the absenceof either congressional authorization or prohibition—action in the face of legal silence. What’s more, the Youngstown framework finds no place at all for significant dimensions of the separation-of-powers picture that are orthogonal to, and often absent from, the customary two-dimensional matrix of executive versus congressional powers, including such vexing and currently salient issues as the scope of prosecutorial discretion and federal power vis-à-vis the States, as well as transcendent concerns about individual rights. In neglecting such issues, the Court shirks its vital role in defining and policing the intricate structure of government established by the Constitution—a structure that must be preserved both to enable effective and politically accountable policymaking and to protect individual liberty.
The truth is that Youngstown offers no meaningful baseline against which to assess the operative legal significance of Congress’s silence.28 Nothing in Youngstown, including Jackson’s classic concurrence, sets out a normative framework for deciding: (1) which kinds of presidential action in the relevant sphere are void unless plainly authorized by Congress ex ante; (2) which are valid unless plainly prohibited by Congress ex ante; and (3) which are of uncertain validity when Congress has been essentially “silent” on the matter although dropping hints about its supposed “will.” Nor does the canonical Jackson concurrence speak to (4) what considerations should guide the resolution of cases within this uncertain third category.
In saying virtually nothing about the appropriate framework for evaluating presidential exercises of power along that normative constitutional axis—and instead charting presidential power only along the descriptive axis of congressional “will” on the matter—the Youngstown triptych left future courts maximum wiggle room—but only by setting up innumerable occasions for unaccountable, and frustratingly opaque, buck-passing among the branches.
Instead of formulating a tripartite scheme for mapping exercises of presidential authority against the backdrop of what it called the “will” of Congress, the Court should at least have begun the process of articulating a body of underlying principles to govern the constitutionality of various types of executive action when—apart from dubious efforts at reading the tea leaves of an imagined congressional “mind”—one simply cannot say either that Congress authorized the executive action at issue or that Congress instead prohibited it. Those underlying principles ought presumably to guide not only the Judicial Branch in reviewing contested presidential choices, but also the Executive Branch in makingthose choices and publicly defending them.
Youngstown’s failure to articulate guiding principles has created a black hole that the Court has at times permitted Congress to fill even when doing so manifestly bypasses the Constitution’s procedural and structural requirements for federal lawmaking. Article I, section 7 requires that all bills must pass both Houses of Congress and be approved by the President to have legal effect.29 These structural hurdles exist both to prevent the gradual deformation of our governmental structure and to protect individual liberty. By ignoring these obstacles, Jackson’s celebrated Youngstown concurrence invites courts to give the force of law to extra-constitutional congressional action by directing judicial attention to the ineffable, and judicially constructed, “implied will of Congress”30rather than to the actual terms of duly enacted laws.
The consequences of the Dames & Moore dicta reverberate today: its promiscuous suggestion that a congressional non-enactment might have legal force was echoed this January in TransCanada’s challenge to the President’s rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline.37 In response to this denial in November, the company sued to obtain permission to construct the pipeline.38 In the complaint, the company leans heavily on Dames & Moore, stating that a bill authorizing the pipeline’s construction yet vetoed by the President “expresses the will of Congress.”39 Despite the constitutional requirements of bicameralism and presentment, TransCanada is arguing that a bill authorizing the pipeline’s construction expressed Congress’s legally operative “will,” despite President Obama’s veto of that very bill.
As these two precedents—Chadha and Clinton—remind us, only congressional action consistent with the structure created by Article I are endowed with the force of law: with exceedingly rare exceptions, courts risk violating “due process of lawmaking” by giving legal effect to congressional silence.52 Yet this important lesson, among others, is often obscured by the geometric allure of Jackson’s tripartite heuristic.
Beyond ending the constitutionally dubious attribution of legal force to actions that nothing in the Constitution’s text or structure endows with the force of law, we need to enlarge the scope of Youngstown’s triptych to encompass matters the Court had no occasion to address in that case. For example, we must address questions of executive enforcement discretion, and the frequent infeasibility, if not utter impossibility, of completely implementing federal law.53 Congress’s instructions—even when embodied in clearly stated enactments—frequently bear little relation to the facts on the ground and may indeed be internally inconsistent. When that occurs, the President is faced with a quandary: if Congress’s “will” cannot be fully effectuated, how can the statutes it has enacted be enforced in a way that respects the rule of law?
The recurring conflict over the federal debt ceiling is a particularly dramatic example of such a quandary. In the summer of 2011, as the United States approached the statutory debt limit set by Congress, an extreme faction of the Republican Party threatened to block any attempt to raise the limit, which would have had devastating economic consequences.54 The President was faced with a trilemma of unconstitutional options: ignore the debt ceiling and unilaterally issue bonds to fund congressionally mandated expenditures, unilaterally raise revenue, or unilaterally cut congressionally mandated spending.55 Whichever horn of that trilemma the President chose, he would have been violating the law as enacted by Congress. Professors Michael Dorf and Neil Buchanan argued that the President’s “least unconstitutional option” would be to ignore the debt ceiling and issue bonds, since this route would involve no judgment calls about how to raise revenue or which programs to cut, and would thus usurp fewer of Congress’s prerogatives while respecting the reliance interests of individual taxpayers and beneficiaries.56 But the constitutional question was never answered, as Congress agreed to raise the debt ceiling two days before its expiration.
The bitter dispute over President Obama’s deferred deportation orders is also a consequence of infeasible congressional instructions. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) makes huge numbers of U.S. residents deportable, but forcibly removing all of the 11 million or more undocumented immigrants from the country would require not only vastly more funds than Congress would ever appropriate but, worse still, a round-up and deportation apparatus that would approach a police state.57 The necessarily selective enforcement regime that this situation requires makes it enormously difficult for the Executive to enforce the immigration laws in a principled, evenhanded manner. Such arbitrariness is the antithesis of the rule of law, and constitutes a threat to individual liberty.
Trying to bring order and lenity into this chaotic realm of unbounded discretion, President Obama introduced two executive programs: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (“DAPA”). Under these programs, certain unauthorized immigrants who have been in the country since 2010 and either arrived when they were younger than sixteen58 or have children who are U.S. citizens59 could apply for deferral of deportation and receipt of work authorization for three years.
The deferred action orders are on hold for now, after a 4-4 split at the Supreme Court left in place a Texas district court’s nationwide stay.68 But a fully staffed Court will undoubtedly confront the constitutionality of the program in the near future, and, when it does, the Justices should hold that the President is fulfillinghis constitutional duty to “take care” that the laws are faithfully executed by ensuring that deportations are carried out in an orderly manner that both enhances the rule of law and gives life to Congress’s own priorities.
The President’s constitutionally vital enforcement discretion is important not just in the standard separation-of-powers disputes with Congress to which Youngstown speaks, but also in disputes about the substantive reach of federal power vis-à-vis the States—another vital structural question on which Youngstown had no occasion to offer guidance but which a suitably enhanced separation of powers matrix should encompass.
As with immigration, the federal government’s recent accommodation of the states that have legalized medical and sometimes recreational use of marijuana similarly exemplifies the intersection of federalism, individual rights, and executive enforcement discretion. In 2013, after a number of state ballot initiatives legalized the possession and sale of marijuana, the Deputy Attorney General issued a memorandum suggesting that “federal officials [could properly] decline prosecution of even large scale growers if [they] complied with state law and if the states maintained a ‘a strong and effective state regulatory system.’”74 Although the federal government has ample authority to override these permissive state laws under Gonzales v. Raich,75 it has refrained from doing so out of respect for the states’ policy judgments. As with DAPA, the President’s decision to systematize and provide guidance regarding the situations in which the federal government may refrain from fully enforcing the dictates of the Controlled Substances Act furthers important constitutional values of uniformity and non-arbitrariness in enforcement—as well as values of federalism and respect for individual rights.
The concern for individual rights that partially animates Obama’s exercises of enforcement discretion in the immigration and marijuana-prosecution contexts highlights a final and especially significant dimension only barely hinted at in Jackson’s Youngstown concurrence, and all but omitted from the way that concurrence has been conventionally understood. Indeed, perhaps the triptych’s most significant limitation is its insufficient focus on the rights of the individuals whose injuries characteristically bring separation of powers disputes within the orbit of Article III in the first place. Youngstown is traditionally conceptualized as a case merely about mapping presidential power vertically along the horizontal axis of expressed congressional will: as Congress’s “will” moves from approval to disapproval along the x-axis, the President’s power rises from high to low along the y-axis. But this conventional two-dimensional understanding obscures the central importance of individual rights as an independent axis or dimension limiting presidential authority.
I take this to mean that Justice Jackson did not need to “hear” in Congress’s silence the imagined sounds of opposition to the seizure power Truman sought to exercise. All he needed was to invoke the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the Fifth Amendment80 in order to conclude that a governmental taking of what was undoubtedly private property—even for pressing public ends and even with the prospect of ultimate compensation—constituted a deprivation of the owners’ rights without legal authority (and thus a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause), unless undertaken pursuant to ex ante congressional authorization. Despite this (admittedly glancing) reliance on the individual rights dimension of Youngstown, both the Court and academic commentary on its separation of powers jurisprudence have, with relatively rare exceptions like Arizona v. United States,81 consistently undervalued—and at times have paid no attention at all—to the distinctly human dramas involving individual rights that underlie the Court’s most significant separation of powers decisions.
The Court’s Zivotofsky II decision in 2015, which cleared the political question hurdle to reach the merits, rested on a puzzlingly broad and fuzzy notion of the President’s supposedly exclusive power to determine which sovereign governs which foreign territory97 and appears even more puzzling when filtered through the lens of individual rights: the Court’s decision virtually ignored the weight of Menachem Zivotofsky’s individual rights and of the individual rights of others similarly situated.
In Zivotofsky II, the Executive justified its decision to disregard the family’s section 214(d) request to list Israel as their son’s birthplace on the ground that the structural separation of powers precluded Congress from passing section 214(d) in the first place. Yet under a theory that attends to what I have called structural justice, that justification rings hollow, or at least begs the question. One could just as easily argue that the administration denied the family a positive law right by undertaking a legislative action (in the form of nullification) that deprived them of liberty without due process of lawmaking.
In sum, I offer this modest proposal as a “friendly amendment” to the Jackson triptych: the individual rights at stake in cases like Zivotofsky II—as in Youngstown itself—should be conceptualized as a distinct third dimension, perpendicular to and superimposed upon Justice Jackson’s original “flatland” diagram: when the President takes action adverse to a claim of individual right, whether by positive action (as in Youngstown or in Captain Smith’s situation) or by negative action (as in Zivotofsky II), structural justice requires that we evaluate the alleged deprivation as part of the calculus set out in Justice Jackson’s map plotting the curve of presidential authority vis-à-vis congressional will. Likewise, structural considerations mandate that attributions of congressional will to that body’s actions (or inactions) be made not casually but only with meticulous attention to the architecture of lawmaking set out in Article I.
So too should federalism be added as a fourth dimension in the constitutional space of separation of powers. Within this more encompassing framework, a wider range of constitutional principles can inform our understanding of the legal and human impacts of disputes between Congress and the President; for example, it can help us see how a President’s liberal use of enforcement discretion might be justified by individual rights or federalism values in one context, as in the immigration and marijuana cases, but may undermine those values in another context, as in Zivotofsky II.
I do not doubt that Justice Jackson was right as a descriptive matter when he noted the fluid and highly contextual ebb and flow of executive power—but I do believe he erred as a normative matter when he focused his gaze downward to search for legal answers solely in this shifting tide. If instead he had followed the impulse that guided him in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette—if he had looked up at the firmament that he had invoked in that decision less than a decade before Youngstown—he could have seen how “the fixed star[s] in our constitutional constellation”104 might help mark the lawful shape of presidential power.
Laurence H. Tribe is Carl M. Loeb University Professor, Harvard University, and Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School. @tribelaw. This Essay is based on his keynote lecture at a Harvard Law School symposium on presidential power in April 2016. In working through the many iterations of this Essay, he was ably assisted by Sam Callahan, Cole Carter, Ryan Cortazar, Colin Doyle, Louis Fisher, Jonathan Gould, Duncan Pickard, Lenny Powell, Lauren Ross, and Matthew Ryan.
Preferred Citation: Laurence H. Tribe, Transcending the Youngstown Triptych: A Multidimensional Reappraisal of Separation of Powers Doctrine, 126 Yale L.J. F. 86 (2016), http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/transcending-the-youngstown-triptych.
Tribe & Matz, supra note 1, at 187.
See Tribe, supra note 3.
134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014) (recess appointments).
Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 135 S. Ct. 2076 (2015) (Zivotofsky II).
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 634-55 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring).
Id. at 637 (emphasis added).
U.S. Const. art. I, § 7; see INS v. Chadha, 462 US 919, 958 (1983).
Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 638 (Jackson, J., concurring).
United States v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 345 U.S. 295, 319 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring).
462 U.S. 919, 958 (1983).
Chadha, 462 U.S. at 948.
Chadha, 462 U.S. at 947.
524 U.S. 417, 449-53 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
Id. at 450-51 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
Tribe, supra note 28, at 528.
See Price, supra note 11, at 674.
See Delahunty & Yoo, supra note 60, at 783-84.
Gillian E. Metzger, The Constitutional Duty To Supervise, 124 Yale L.J. 1836, 1927-1929 (2015).
8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(3) (2012).
United States v. Texas, No. 15-674, slip op. at 1 (June 23, 2016) (per curiam).
Id. at 2499; see also Tribe & Matz, supra note 1, at 211-12.
See Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2498-99.
In re Aiken County, 725 F.3d 255, 264 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
U.S. Const., art. II, § 3, cl. 5.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 646 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring).
See Lederman, supra note 86.
132 S. Ct. 1421 (2012).
See Zivotofsky II, 135 S. Ct. 2076, 2084 (2015).
Laurence H. Tribe, Structural Due Process, 10 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 269, 291 (1975).
1 Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 1673 (2d ed. 1988).
319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).
See, e.g., Laurence Tribe & Joshua Matz, Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution 186-87 (2014); Harold J. Krent, From a Unitary to a Unilateral Presidency, 88 B.U. L. Rev. 523, 523-24 (2008); Solomon Kleinsmith, Opinion: Why Obama’s a Hypocrite on Executive Power, WNYC (Jan. 5, 2012), http://www.wnyc.org/story/179466-opinion-why-obamas-hypocrite-signing-statements [http://perma.cc/NU58-HCKL].
See, e.g., Opinion, Obama Moving on Immigration at Last — Without Recalcitrant Congress, L.)(e f the Affordable Care Act (“ress the plunder that had already taken place, ht it back to thhen Nazis. A. Daily News (Nov. 13, 2014, 3:55 PM), http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20141113/obama-moving-on-immigration-at-last-x2014-without-recalcitrant-congress-opinion [http://perma.cc/DQ6X-3WKF].
Laurence H. Tribe, Obama’s Gun Actions Are Absolutely Legal, Profoundly Right, CNN (Jan. 5, 2016, 7:59 PM), http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/opinions/tribe-obama-action-on-guns [http://perma.cc/LP9L-5RWJ].
See Maya Rhodan, President Obama Will Close Guantanamo Bay Prison: Aide, TIME (Jan. 11, 2016), http://time.com/4174931/president-obama-will-close-guantanamo-bay-prison-aide [http://perma.cc/BTM7-FS97].
Ron Paul, An Unconstitutional Killing: Obama’s Killing of Awlaki Violates American Principles, Daily News (Oct. 2, 2011, 4:00 AM), http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/unconstitutional-killing-obama-killing-awlaki-violates-american-principles-article-1.961079 [http://perma.cc/JTR5-JEV2]; Simon Lazarus, Delaying Parts of Obamacare: ‘Blatantly Illegal’ or Routine Adjustment?, The Atlantic (July 17, 2013), http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/delaying-parts-of-obamacare-blatantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/ [http://perma.cc/4WUG-XSU2].
Gretchen Morgenson, Ending Tax Break for Ultrawealthy May Not Take an Act of Congress, N.Y. Times (May 6, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/business/ending-tax-break-for-ultrawealthy-may-not-take-act-of-congress.html [http://perma.cc/C4GU-EQMZ]. For an analysis of why presidents frequently underutilize the authority to modify tax regulations, see Daniel Hemel, The President’s Power To Tax, 102 Cornell L. Rev. (forthcoming 2016).
Compare Dawn Johnsen, The Obama Administration’s Decision To Defend Constitutional Equality Rather Than the Defense of Marriage Act, 81 Fordham L. Rev. 599, 603 (2012) (approving of President Obama’s decision not to defend DOMA because to do so would have “contributed to the continued exclusion from full and equal standing under the law” to a historically marginalized population), and Tribe & Matz, supra note 1, at 187 (identifying the President’s decision not to defend DOMA as a notable example of executive action criticized as overreach by conservatives), with Charles Fried, The Solicitor General’s Office, Tradition, and Conviction, 81 Fordham L. Rev. 549, 549 (2012) (characterizing the Obama Administration’s decision not to defend DOMA as “anomalous” and “unjustified”).
See Bruce Ackerman, Legal Acrobatics, Illegal War, N.Y. Times (June 20, 2011), http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/opinion/21Ackerman.html [http://perma.cc/7LK3-Z2SS] (arguing that Obama’s Libya campaign violates the War Powers Act); Bruce Ackerman, The War Against ISIS Is Unconstitutional, Lawfare (May 5, 2016), http://www.lawfareblog.com/war-against-isis-unconstitutional [http://perma.cc/UX5U-S727] (arguing that Obama’s undeclared war against ISIS is unlawful).
Zachary S. Price, Enforcement Discretion and Executive Duty, 67 Vand. L. Rev. 671, 673 (2014))(e f the Affordable Care Act (“ress the plunder that had already taken place, ht it back to thhen Nazis. .
See United States v. Texas, No. 15-674 (June 23, 2016) (per curiam); Crane v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 244 (5th Cir. 2015); Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2015); see also Warren Richey, Supreme Court Prods Obama Administration in Colorado Marijuana Dispute (+Video), Christian Science Monitor (May 4, 2015), http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/0504/Supreme-Court-prods-Obama-administration-in-Colorado-marijuana-dispute-video [http://perma.cc/EVC7-EMAH] (discussing Oklahoma and Nebraska’s legal challenge which argued that Colorado’s “2012 ballot initiative decriminalizing marijuana is preempted by federal drug laws and is, thus, unconstitutional” despite the fact that “the Justice Department has looked the other way while states like Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska have sought to decriminalize recreational use of marijuana”).
Tribe & Matz, supra note 1, at 187; Price, supra note 11 at 674; see also Zachary S. Price, Politics of Nonenforcement, 65 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 1119, 1136 (2015) (noting the aggressive use of “policy-driven nonenforcement” by Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush and arguing that Obama has “continued the trend”).
See Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton (Zivotofsky I), 132 S. Ct. 1421, 1427 (2012) (“In general, the Judiciary has a responsibility to decide cases properly before it, even those it would gladly avoid.” (quotations omitted)); Tribe & Matz, supra note 1, at 187 (“[Q]uestions about the separation of powers only rarely reach the Court. When they do, the Court treads carefully.”).
See Zivotofsky II, 134 S. Ct. at 2096 (ruling on the merits of the case and not dismissing the case as non-justiciable); Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. at 2578; Zivotofsky I, 132 S. Ct. at 1430 (“The political question doctrine poses no bar to judicial review of this case.”); Victor Williams, NLRB v. Noel Canning Presents a Nonjusticiable Political Question, 2014 Cardozo L. Rev. De Novo 45 (providing arguments that Noel Canning presented a nonjusticiable political question which the Court necessarily rejected when it ruled on the merits).
On March 16, 2016, President Obama nominated D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s untimely death on February 13, 2016, barely into the President’s final year in office. For a reflection on Justice Scalia’s contributions and critique of his jurisprudence, see Laurence H. Tribe, The Scalia Myth, N.Y. Rev. Books (Feb. 27, 2016, 11:01 AM), http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/02/27/the-scalia-myth [http://perma.cc/6CT8-7SVZ]. As of this writing, the Republican leadership of the Senate is sticking by the unprecedented position that a vacancy arising in a sitting President’s last year in that office should not be filled before the upcoming presidential election.
Justice Stevens, while joining the majority opinion, argued in concurrence that RFRA also violated the Establishment Clause. See id. at 536-37 (Stevens, J., concurring). This alternative ground for decision could have avoided the Court’s broad pronouncement of its interpretive dominance over Congress. The dissenters, on the other hand, argued not that RFRA was permissible from a separation-of-powers perspective, but rather that Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the First Amendment decision from which RFRA purposefully deviated, was likely wrongly decided, and that it should be reexamined because its overruling would reconcile RFRA with the Court’s own (pre-Smith) understanding of the Free Exercise Clause. City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 544-45 (O’Connor, J., dissenting).
Id. at 517-20 (majority opinion). That the Court’s Marbury function requires it to prevent Congress from using an ostensible power of interpretation to dilute protections held by the Court to be required by, for instance, Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment (and thus by the Fifth Amendment) seems entirely right. But it is another matter altogether for the Court to insist, as it has ever since City of Boerne, that Congress, despite its institutional differences from the Judicial Branch, is forbidden to define those protections more broadly than the Court has felt free to define them. See 1 Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 949 & n.121, 951 (3d ed. 2000).
This unity was showcased by the decision in City of Boerne. But it was displayed more subtly in a joint dissent in Bank Markazi v. Peterson, No. 14-770 (Apr. 20, 2016), by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Sotomayor, in which the two unlikely allies vigorously defended the independence of the judiciary against what they saw as congressional attempts to dictate particular outcomes in pending litigation without changing the applicable underlying law. The Court’s 7-2 division did not represent disagreement that Article III poses some limits on the extent to which Congress can prescribe judicial rules of decision—limits evidenced in the canonical case of United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1872). See Bank Markazi, slip op. at 15. Rather, the majority and dissent disagreed over how to apply the (concededly hazy) rule of Klein and subsequent case law to the statute in question: Justice Ginsburg’s majority found Klein inapposite because the statute created “new substantive standards.” Id., slip op. at 18. But the Chief Justice found that argument conclusory, id., slip op. at 12 (“Changing the law is simply how Congress acts. The question is whether its action constitutes an exercise of judicial power.”), and instead found that the statute impermissibly exercised judicial power because it dictated the outcome of specific cases, see id., slip op. at 9.
See Antonin Scalia, Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws, in A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law 3 (Amy Gutmann ed., 1997); John F. Manning, Textualism and the Equity of the Statute, 101 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (2001).
See id. (“Congress has not disapproved of the action taken here. Though Congress has held hearings on the Iranian Agreement itself, Congress has not enacted legislation, or even passed a resolution, indicating its displeasure with the Agreement.” (footnote omitted)).
Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline, White House (Nov. 5, 2015), http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/06/statement-president-keystone-xl-pipeline [http://perma.cc/2U3F-U6MY].
Complaint, TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Kerry, No. 4:16-cv-00036 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2016).
See Laurence H. Tribe, Constitutional Choices 72-74 (1985) (arguing that Chadha actually rests on the Appointments Clause, the Incompatibility Clause, and the Constitution’s rejection of parliamentary government).
Chadha, 462 U.S. at 951; see also The Federalist No. 73, at 371 (Alexander Hamilton) (Ian Shapiro ed., 2009) (“If even no propensity had ever discovered itself in the legislative body to invade the rights of the Executive, the rules of just reasoning and theoretic propriety would of themselves teach us, that the one ought not to be left to the mercy of the other, but ought to possess a constitutional and effectual power of self-defense.”).
Compare U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, cl. 2 (“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.”), with id. cl. 3 (“Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States.”).
Id. at 496-97 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (“Nor . . . do [the means of the Act] threaten the liberties of individual citizens.”).
Justice Breyer would later describe a similar idea under the name of “ancient liberty” in his Tanner Lectures on Human Values, which later formed the basis of his 2007 book, Active Liberty.
Cf. Jack Goldsmith & John F. Manning, The President’s Completion Power, 115 Yale L.J. 2280, 2293 (2006) (“Prosecutorial discretion requires policy determinations about how best to implement a statutory program.”).
See Letter from Timothy F. Geithner, U.S. Sec’y of Treasury, to Jim DeMint, U.S. Senator (June 28, 2011), http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/Documents/DLDeMint062811.pdf [http://perma.cc/498W-24HS] (“[A] failure to resolve [the debt ceiling] in the near term would have painful implications for people in every walk of American life.”).
Neil H. Buchanan & Michael C. Dorf, How To Choose the Least Unconstitutional Option: Lessons for the President (and Others) From the Debt Ceiling Standoff, 112 Colum. L. Rev. 1175, 1197 (2012).
See Adam B. Cox & Cristina M. Rodriguez, The President and Immigration Law, 119 Yale L.J. 458, 463 (2009) (arguing that the immigration “code has had the counterintuitive consequence of delegating tremendous authority to the President to set immigration screening policy by making a huge fraction of noncitizens deportable at the option of the Executive”).
Memorandum from Janet Napolitano, Sec’y, Homeland Sec., to David V. Aguilar, Acting Comm’r, U.S. Customs and Border Prot., Alejandro Mayorkas, Dir., U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Serv., and John Morton, Dir., U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf’t (June 5, 2012), http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf [http://perma.cc/XAQ5-H8KC] (establishing DACA).
Memorandum from Jeh Charles Johnson, Sec’y, Homeland Sec., to Leon Rodriguez, Dir., U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Serv., Thomas S. Winkowski, Acting Dir., U.S. Immigration and Customs Enf’t, and R. Gil Kerlikowske, Comm’r, U.S. Customs and Border Prot. (Nov. 20, 2014), http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_deferred_action.pdf [http://perma.cc/4CKQ-6HXC] (expanding DACA and establishing DAPA).
See Robert J. Delahunty & John C. Yoo, Dream On: The Obama Administration’s Nonenforcement of Immigration Laws, the DREAM Act, and the Take Care Clause, 91 Tex. L. Rev. 781 (2013); see also Price, supra note 11, at 674 (noting that “President Obama’s policies have sparked controversy” but nevertheless arguing that “his actions are not unique”).
470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985) (recognizing that the decision whether to prosecute a particular violation of the law implicates a number of factors that the executive is best placed to consider, including whether prosecution would be a wise use of resources and whether prosecution is consistent with the government’s broader policies).
Brief for Petitioner at 60, United States v. Texas, No. 15-674 (2016) (“Congress has considered a series of bills that would bar implementation of DACA (and later DAPA) or block funding unless they are rescinded, and that would limit the Secretary’s authority to grant work authorization. . . None has passed both the House and Senate, much less become law.”). The circuit court decision the Court had granted certiorari to review was ultimately affirmed by an equally divided Court, see infra note 68, thereby leaving the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in place and establishing no precedent.
The Dep’t of Homeland Sec.’s Auth. To Prioritize Removal of Certain Aliens Unlawfully Present in the United States and To Defer Removal of Others, 38 Op. O.L.C. 1, 2 (2014).
Id. at 2524 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (objecting to the majority’s holding that provisions of Arizona law were pre-empted).
Price, supra note 11, at 758 (quoting Memorandum from James M. Cole, Deputy Attorney Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to All United States Attorneys, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Aug. 29, 2013), http://www.oregon.gov/olcc/docs/commission_minutes/2015/Cole_Memorandum.pdf [http://perma.cc/CGP7-GLGU].
Alexander M. Bickel, The Supreme Court, 1960 Term—Foreword: The Passive Virtues, 75 Harv. L. Rev. 40 (1961); Gerald Gunther, The Subtle Vices of the “Passive Virtues”—A Comment on Principle and Expediency in Judicial Review, 64 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (1964).
See Complaint, Smith v. Obama, No. 1:16-cv-00843-CKK (D.D.C. May 4, 2016) [hereinafter Smith Complaint].
50 U.S.C. § 1544(b) (2012) (requiring the President to obtain congressional approval within 60 days of sending American troops into hostilities).
Specifically, Smith claims that American involvement is not justified by any of the bases that the Administration relies on: the 2001 or 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs), or the President’s commander-in-chief power—and that the War Powers Resolution thus requires the military action to cease. His complaint also admonishes the Administration for relying on these bases implicitly, rather than through formal opinions by the Office of Legal Counsel or White House Counsel. See Smith Complaint, supra note 83, at 8-9.
Marty Lederman, Why Captain Smith’s Suit To Enforce the War Powers Resolution Won’t Be a Big Deal, Just Security (May 9, 2016, 8:42 AM), http://www.justsecurity.org/30949/captain-smiths-suit-enforce-war-powers-resolution-big-deal [http://perma.cc/2KX7-6FL2].
See, e.g., Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Lowry v. Reagan, 676 F. Supp. 333 (D.D.C. 1987).
See Bruce Ackerman, Is America’s War on ISIS Illegal?, N.Y. Times (May 4, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/opinion/is-americas-war-on-isis-illegal.html [http://perma.cc/DH93-ZHB5].
Professors Marty Lederman and Jack Goldsmith each predict that Smith would lose on the merits if the case were justiciable, with the court likely ruling that the 2001 or 2002 AUMF, when combined with an absence of congressional disapproval of hostilities against ISIS and with the presence of congressional appropriations funding those hostilities, is sufficient authorization for purposes of the War Powers Resolution. Id.; Jack Goldsmith, Analysis of Lawsuit Challenging War Against ISIL, Lawfare (May 4, 2016, 1:03 PM), http://lawfareblog.com/analysis-lawsuit-challenging-war-against-isil [http://perma.cc/6FSR-D64L] (suggesting appropriations for hostilities imply congressional authorization).
See id. at 1427 (“The existence of a statutory right . . . is certainly relevant to the Judiciary’s power to decide Zivotofsky’s claim. The federal courts are not being asked to supplant a foreign policy decision of the political branches with the courts’ own unmoored [policy] determination . . . .”). While the Court did not explicitly lay down a categorical rule against “statutory political questions,” it is telling that Justices Sotomayor and Alito went out of their way in concurrences to suggest that some statutory challenges could still be barred. See Chris Michel, Comment, There’s No Such Thing as a Political Question of Statutory Interpretation: The Implications of Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 123 Yale L.J. 253, 259 (2013).
See The Supreme Court 2011 Term—Leading Cases: Section I, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 176, 307, 313-17 (2012) (proffering prudential reasons for reading Zifotofsky I more narrowly, including in cases brought under the War Powers Resolution).
See Tribe, supra note 23, at 376 & n.56 (contrasting two cases decided in the wake of the Kent State shootings in 1971: Gilligan v. Morgan, in which the Court invoked the political question doctrine to bar a suit seeking systematic reform of the training of the Ohio National Guard, and Scheuer v. Rhodes, in which the Court heard on the merits an action for damages by families of the shooting victims).
In 1967, the Court denied certiorari over several soldiers’ challenge to the legality of the Vietnam War that was dismissed in the courts below. Mora v. McNamara, 389 U.S. 934 (1967) (mem.). In dissent, Justices Stewart and Douglas urged that, given the gravity of the issues presented, the Court should at least decide whether the challenge was justiciable even if it had doubts, and Justice Douglas specifically emphasized the denial’s burden on the individual soldiers. See id. at 939 (Douglas, J., dissenting) (“These petitioners should be told whether their case is beyond judicial cognizance.”).
See Garrett Epps, The War that Congress Won’t Declare, The Atlantic (Aug. 22, 2015) http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/aumf-isis/402017/ [http://perma.cc/MZM9-2SXX] (“This war is an ongoing violation of the Constitution, one of the most severe of the 21st century. But it is a violation in which both parties are happy to collaborate.”).
Jack Goldsmith, Zivotofsky II as Precedent in the Executive Branch, 129 Harv. L. Rev. 112, 114 (2015).
Id. at 2117 (Scalia, J., dissenting); Brief for the Petitioner at 16, Zivotofsky II, 135 S. Ct. 2076 (2015) (No. 13-628) (“To these Americans, personal dignity and conscientious conviction calls on them to identify themselves as born in ‘Israel.’”).
Cf. Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans, Tex. Div., 135 S. Ct. 2239 (2015) (holding that Texas was under no First Amendment obligation to include a Confederate-flag vanity plate in its menu of options available to drivers upon request and payment of a fee, reasoning that license plates issued by the State carry purely “government speech” and that the First Amendment imposes no limits on government’s discretion regarding what to say and what not to say). I have elsewhere defended the result in that case, not on the Court’s ground that state officials enjoyed absolute discretion over the decision whether to issue a Confederate-flag license plate under the government speech doctrine, but on the basis that the Equal Protection Clause forbids the state from “speaking” in a way that promotes racial hierarchy and hatred, just as the Establishment Clause forbids government to “speak” in a manner that endorses a religion. See Laurence H. Tribe, The Constitution Writ Large, Part One, Balkinization (July 13, 2015), http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-constitution-writ-large-part-one.html [http://perma.cc/52VX-F5YJ].
A decision focusing on that “unconstitutional conditions” dimension of the case would have been reminiscent of Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958), the landmark decision holding that, while the State of California could constitutionally have withheld a special property tax exemption from all veterans, it could not condition the privilege of such an exemption on a veteran’s promise to refrain from advocating the State’s overthrow.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1324
 v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1544
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.