Domestic Presidential Power

Youngstown ; Clinton v. Jones ; Clinton v. CIty of New York ; Nixon v. United States

Youngstown v. Sawyer (domestic privilege)

Truman seized steel mills during Korean conflict advert a labor strike

issue: Youngstown

Did the President have the constitutional authority to seize and operate the steel mills?

reasoning: Youngstown

the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision held that President Truman's actions were unconstitutional as they were not explicitly authorized by an act of Congress, nor could the action be reasonably construed as carrying out one of the authorities granted to the President. As to the government's argument that the order was authorized under the President's power as Commander in Chief, the Court responded that such powers did not include authorizing the President to seize private property to prevent labor disputes from interrupting production. 

What is the first sentiment of the Jackson concurrence (Youngstown)?

presidential power is greatest when sought to action is expressly authorized by Congress

what is the second sentiment of the Jackson concurrence (Youngstown)?

when Congress is silent on whether a certain presidential action is authorized, the President must rely on his sole power as the executive.

what is the third sentiment of the Jackson concurrence (Youngstown)?

when the President takes action that goes against congressional authority, his power “is at its lowest ebb.)

How does Youngstown set precedent for domestic presidential power?

It established a three-tier framework for evaluating when a President’s actions are likely to be upheld by the courts. A crucial legal precedent for evaluating the limits of presidential power, particularly when it comes to domestic issues where Congress may not have explicitly granted authority to the President to act in a certain way.

Clinton v. Jones (presidential immunity)

Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, sued President Bill Clinton, alleging that he had sexually harassed her in 1991 while he was a governor of Arkansas. She also claimed that her superiors at work subsequently dealt with her in a hostile and rude manner and changed her duties to punish her for rejecting those advances.

issue one: Jones

Does a sitting president have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for private conduct before assuming office?

issue two: Jones

Would allowing the lawsuit to interfere with the president’s ability to perform executive duties under the separation of powers doctrine?

issue three: Jones

Does postponing the lawsuit violate the plaintiff’s right to timely legal remedy under the due process clause?

reasoning: Jones

• No, immunity applies only to official presidential duties, not private conduct

• No, the court ruled that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would not unduly interfere with executive functions

• Yes, the court held that delaying the case was an abuse of discretion because Jones had the right to timely resolution

what three things does Jones’s case open?

Presidential Immunity, Separation of Powers, and Due Process and Equal Protection

Majority opinion: Jones

• Immunity is based on the function performed not the actor’s identity — official actions are protected, but private misconduct is not.

• The lawsuit wouldn’t disrupt the president’s duties since courts routinely handle litigation involving public officials.

• The Constitution does not bar courts from exercising jurisdiction over private legal matters involving a sitting president.

• Separation of powers does not justify delaying the case, as again it does not interfere with Clinton’s ability to perform presidential functions

Clinton v. City of NY (line-item veto)

• the City of New York, two hospital associations, a hospital, and two health care unions, challenged the President's cancellation of a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997

• the Snake River farmer's cooperative and one of its individual members challenged the President's cancellation of a provision of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997

issue: NY

Did the President’s ability to selectively cancel individual portions of bills, under the Line Item Veto Act, violate the Presentment Clause of Article I?

reasoning: NY

Yes, the respondents suffered sufficiently immediate and concrete injuries to sustain their standing to challenge the President’s actions. Under the Presentment Clause, legislation that passes both Houses of Congress must either be entirely approved or rejected by the President. The Court concluded, violated the “finely wrought” legislative procedures of Article I as envisioned by the Framers.

United States v. Nixon (executive privilege)

An indictment against seven of president Nixon’s closest aides in the Watergate affair. The special prosecutor appointed by Nixon and the defendants sought audio tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in the Oval Office. Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena claiming "executive privilege.”

issue one: Nixon

Is the President’s right to safeguard certain information, using his “executive privilege” confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review?

issue two: Nixon

If a claim of absolute privilege is not upheld, does constitutional law still provide sufficient grounds to quash a subpoena duces tecum?

reasoning: Nixon

• No, as reaffirmed in Marbury v. Madison, it is up the judiciary department to decide “what the law is”. The president cannot decide unilaterally that his communication are off-limits; the courts have the authority to determine if a privilege claim is valid.

  • while the president has the right to confidentiality in some cases (especially pertaining to national security or military matters0 it cannot be used to block evidence in a criminal investigation.

  • if the president had absolute privilege, it would block the courts from fulfilling their duty to ensure justice in criminal cases

• The case is under presumptive privilege

• If there is an overriding need — such as evidence in a criminal investigation —- the courts can override the presumption and require disclosure.

presumptive privilege

the information is assumed to be protected, but it can be challenged and overturned if the need for disclosure is greater

how do the cases presented relate to president’s domestic powers?

• cannot without evidence in a criminal case

• cannot claim absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for personal actions

• cannot take actions that belong to Congress, like seizing private property

Nixon

established that the president cannot use executive privilege to without evidence in a criminal investigation, reinforcing that the president is not above the law

Clinton

established that presidents are still subject to legal accountability while in office

Youngstown

reinforced that the president cannot act beyond the powers granted by the Constitution or Congress

checks and balance and the rule of law

emphasize ___ and the ____ ensuring the president remains accountable in domestic matters

New York Times v. United States

• The New York Times and Washington Post published the Pentagon Papers, a classified government study detailing U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

• The U.S. government sued to stop further publication, citing national security risks.

• The case quickly reached the Supreme Court, which had to decide if the government could use prior restraint (preventing publication before it happens).

issues: NYT

• Can the president prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers based on national security? → No.

• Does the First Amendment protect the newspapers’ right to publish? → Yes.

reasonings: NYT

• Prior restraint (government censorship before publication) is almost always unconstitutional.

• The government must meet a high burden of proof to justify censorship, showing a direct and immediate threat to national security.

• The Court ruled that the government failed to prove such a threat.

Justice Brennan: NYT

Prior restraint can only happen if publication would cause “immediate and irreparable harm”, which the government failed to show.

Justice Stewart (joined by White): NYT

• A well-informed public is essential for democracy.

• The government had the burden of proving that publication would cause harm, and it did not meet that burden.

Justice Marshall: NYT

• Congress, not the president, has the power to make laws regulating classified information.

• The president cannot use executive power to suppress publication.

Dissenting: Burger

Need More Time “courts did not have enough time”

Dissenting: Harlan

Foreign Affairs Power belongs to the President, not the courts ; judiciary should not interfere with executive decisions on national security

dissenting: Blackmun

the first amendment is not absolute ; constitution has multiple parts, not just the First Amendment ; absolute free speech can undermine the president’s power under Article II (executive authority)

why is the case important?

• defines limits on presidential power in times of emergency

• strengthens press freedom by setting a high bar for government censorship

• establishes the national security concerns do not automatically override the 1st amendment