EXECUTIVE POWER

Biden v. Missouri

Issues

Can the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services continue to temporarily enforce a mandate requiring health care workers at Medicare- and Medicaid-certified facilities to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 notwithstanding a district court injunction prohibiting the rule’s enforcement?

This case asks the Supreme Court to grant a stay of a district court injunction that currently blocks the Biden Administration from enforcing a mandate requiring certain healthcare workers to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. The Biden Administration argues that the Supreme Court should issue a stay because the mandate is statutorily authorized, and its enforcement is in the public interest. The State of Missouri and nine other states (collectively “Missouri”) counter that the Supreme Court should reject the Biden Administration’s application for a stay and maintain enjoinment of the mandate throughout the pending litigation. The outcome of this case has significant implications for the Biden Administration’s pandemic-related authority and the role that the Supreme Court will play in either upholding or invalidating such authority.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Supreme Court should issue a stay of the injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri blocking a federal rule that requires all health care workers at facilities that participate in Medicare and Medicaid programs to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they are eligible for a medical or religious exemption.  

On November 5, 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (“CMS”), an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), promulgated 86 Fed. Reg.

Additional Resources

 

Submit for publication
0

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump

Issues

Does the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorize the President to impose tariffs?

 

This case asks whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) authorizes the president to impose tariffs in an emergency. Learning Resources contends that the IEEPA does not give the president tariff authority, and—even if it does—does not grant the broad authority the President claims. President Trump argues that a plain-meaning interpretation of the IEEPA grants tariff authority, and the IEEPA does not limit the scope of the tariff power because the limitation is not expressly listed as other limitations are. This case raises significant issues about the separation of powers and future of foreign relations.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs. 

The 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act (“TWEA”) granted the United States President the power to restrict trade with certain foreign countries during wartimes. Brief for Respondent, Donald J.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Trump v. Cook

Issues

Whether the president’s removal of a member of the Federal Reserve comported with the relevant procedural requirements and whether the removal was for sufficient cause.

This case considers whether the removal of Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, by President Donald J. Trump, comported with constitutional and statutory requirements. The Court must address a temporary restraining order leaving Cook in her position after President Trump sought the first-ever (attempted) presidential removal of a Federal Reserve Board of Governors member, citing an alleged incident of prior fraud by Cook. The parties disagree about what, if any, cause is required for a president to remove a Board member. Trump argues that he has broad discretion to remove a Board member, with only minimal procedural protections required, whereas Cook construes the presidential removal power narrowly, and argues for robust procedural protections against removal. This dispute could reshape the relationship between the president and the Federal Reserve, potentially limiting or ending the Federal Reserve’s longstanding independence in setting monetary policy.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Supreme Court should stay a district court ruling preventing the president from firing a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

Congress established the Federal Reserve (“the Fed”) by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Cook v.

Submit for publication
0

Trump v. Hawaii

Issues

Can the president lawfully prevent foreign nationals from certain Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States?

On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13769, which temporarily banned citizens of seven Muslim-majority nations from immigrating to the United States. Various states challenged the executive order on grounds of religious discrimination. In March of 2017, the president signed Executive Order 13780, and in September 2017 he issued a third iteration of the order via presidential proclamation. The proclamation affects the immigration and visa rights of nationals of eight different Muslim-majority countries. President Trump argues that the proclamation is a proper application of his executive authority, and that it accords with the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Hawaii contends that the proclamation is motivated in part by religious discrimination and is therefore unconstitutional. The outcome of the case could significantly impact existing immigration policy, as well as determine the scope of the Executive’s power to implement and enforce such policy.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether the respondents’ challenge to the president’s suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable; (2) whether the proclamation – which suspends entry, subject to exceptions and case-by-case waivers, of certain categories of aliens abroad from eight countries that do not share adequate information with the United States or that present other risk factors – is a lawful exercise of the president’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad; (3) whether the global injunction barring enforcement of the proclamation’s entry suspensions worldwide, except as to nationals of two countries and as to persons without a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, is impermissibly overbroad; and (4) whether the proclamation violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.

On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13769 (“EO-1”), which placed significant immigration restrictions on foreign nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries. Hawaii v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662 (9th Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Trump v. Slaughter

Issues

Does the separation of powers permit statutory removal protections for heads of multimember administrative agencies? If so, do federal courts have the authority to reinstate wrongfully discharged members of such agencies?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether “for-cause” removal protections over members of multimember administrative agencies, like the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), violate the separation of powers and, even if they do, whether federal courts have the power to reinstate wrongfully removed officers. President Donald J. Trump claims that the Constitution vests the entire executive power in the president and, therefore, the president must be able to control officers who exercise power on his behalf through the threat of removal. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter argues that removal protections benefit the separation of powers and enable administrative agencies to function as Congress and the founders intended. This case implicates the amount of power that a president may constitutionally exert on agencies and the stability of such agencies, including, potentially, the Federal Reserve, going forward.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States should be overruled. 

(2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.

Congress established the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) through the FTC Act of 1914. Slaughter v.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to EXECUTIVE POWER