Constitutional Law - Executive Power

Separation of Powers

  • Definition: Division of power among branches to prevent tyranny and ensure the rule of law. Achieved through noninvolvement of branches without specific power and checks and balances distributing specified power.

  • Purpose:

    • Prevent tyranny by avoiding concentrated power.

    • Facilitate the rule of law with power divided across entities.

    • Address initial fears of the legislature and later concerns about executive power growth.

    • Enhance efficiency of administration.

Approaches to Separation of Powers

  • Formalism:

    • Adherence to explicitly granted powers and procedures.

    • Prevents overstepping by branches (e.g., legislature not enforcing laws).

    • Views separation as a command from the Constitution’s text and structure.

  • Functionalism:

    • Fidelity to the purpose of separation.

    • Avoids detriment to other branches by extending power.

    • Views separation as crucial for fulfilling the Constitution’s goal.

Agencies

  • Created by Congress, agencies are subject to presidential control but are not departments.

  • Combine rulemaking, prosecution, and claim resolution.

    • Formalist View: Violates separation by reuniting powers in a "4th branch."

    • Functionalist View: Tools to deliver federal functions; separation applies to top government only.

A. The Framework: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

  • Context:

    • Korean War, labor dispute over steelworker contracts.

    • Strike threat in 1952, essential steel for military production.

    • Truman's Executive Order 10340 seized steel mills.

    • Legal challenge by steel companies.

  • Background:

    • Truman refused Taft-Hartley Act powers, believing management caused the crisis.

    • Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company sued, claiming unconstitutionality.

    • Court ruled seizure unconstitutional, leading to strikes.

Facts

  • 1951: Steel-mill owners and workers disagreed on contract terms.

  • Workers planned a strike after contract expiration.

  • Federal government mediation failed.

  • April 4, 1952: Union announced strike starting April 9.

  • Truman feared strike's effect on national security.

  • Executive Order 10340 directed Sawyer to control mills.

  • Steel companies sued, challenging presidential power.

Arguments of Parties

  • Plaintiffs (Steel Companies):

    • Unconstitutional seizure with no legal authority or emergency justification.

  • Defendant (President Truman):

    • National security threat justified action as Commander-in-Chief.

    • Emergency measure to protect the war effort.

Procedural Posture

  • District court ruled against Truman.

  • Court of appeals paused ruling.

  • U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Issue

  • Did President Truman have the authority to seize mills without congressional approval?

Rule(s)

  • Article I: Congress makes laws, controls commerce.

  • Article II: President has executive power to enforce laws, commands military.

  • Taft-Hartley Act (1947): Denied presidential power to seize businesses in labor disputes.

Analysis

  • Presidential power must come from Constitution or Congress.

  • No statute or congressional act allowed seizure.

  • Congress rejected seizure for labor disputes.

  • President's action was congressional job.

Holding

  • No, Truman lacked authority.

Conclusion

  • Reinforced separation of powers, limited presidential power.

  • President cannot make laws, only enforce them.

Concurring Opinion: Jackson

  • Maximum Power: With Congress's approval.

  • Zone of Twilight: Without clear approval.

  • Weak Power: Against Congress’s will.

  • Truman’s action was in the weak power category due to opposing Congress’s wishes.

  • Congress (not the president) controls the army.

Douglas Concurrence

  • Believed the President lacked authority to seize private property without Congress's approval.

  • Executive Overreach: Warned that allowing such actions could set a dangerous precedent for expanding executive power.

Frankfurter Concurrence

  • Congressional Authority: Congress's approval is needed to take actions like seizing property.

  • Seizure law has been authorized by Congress but with limitations and safeguards.

Vinson Dissent

  • President’s Emergency Powers: Believed the President, as Commander-in-Chief, had the authority to act during a national emergency to protect national security.

  • Thought seizing the steel mills was a reasonable response to the threat of a strike disrupting steel production, which could hurt the war effort.

Foreign Affairs: United States v. Curtiss-Wright
Facts

  • Congress allowed President to ban arms sales to countries in the Chaco border dispute.

  • Curtiss-Wright sold arms, violating the ban.

Arguments of Parties

  • Government (Plaintiff):

    • President can stop sales under executive order and congressional resolution.

  • Curtiss-Wright Export Co. (Defendant):

    • Congress gave too much power.

Procedural Posture

  • District court ruled in favor of Curtiss-Wright.

  • U.S. government appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue

  • Did President have power to stop arms sales based on Congress’s law?

Rule(s)

  • Joint Resolution of Congress (1934):

    • Authorized President to prohibit arms sales.

  • Executive Order:

    • Banned arms sales in response to resolution.

Analysis

  • Foreign affairs powers come from outside the Constitution.

  • The president is the sole authority for foreign relations.

  • The President has unique powers in foreign policy and national security, as outlined in Article II of the Constitution.

Holding

  • The President had the authority to issue the executive order and stop arms sales to countries involved in the Chaco border dispute.

B. Executive Privileges and Immunities: United States v. Nixon
Facts

  • Nixon subpoenaed for Watergate tapes; claimed executive privilege.

Argument of Parties

  • President: the court lacks jurisdiction to issue subpoena because the matter was an intra-branch dispute between a subordinate and superior officer of the executive branch, not subject to judicial resolution.

Procedural Posture

  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia:

    • Issued subpoena for Nixon’s tapes.

    • Nixon filed motion to quash.

    • Court denied motion.

  • United States Supreme Court:

    • Granted certiorari.

Issue

  • Does President have absolute privilege to withhold evidence?

Analysis

  • Separation of powers allows judicial review.

  • Privilege is limited; judiciary has final say.

Holding

  • No, Nixon must comply.

Conclusion

  • Nixon ordered to release tapes, resigned.

Clinton v. Jones
Facts

  • Jones sued Clinton for pre-presidency conduct; Clinton claimed immunity.

Argument of Parties

  • Clinton (Defendant):

    • The lawsuit should be delayed because it would interfere with his presidential duties and violate separation of powers.

  • Jones (Plaintiff):

    • The case involves private conduct, not official presidential duties, so immunity does not apply.

Procedural Posture

  • District Court: Ruled that Clinton had temporary immunity and stayed the lawsuit until his presidency ended.

  • Court of Appeals (8th Circuit): Reversed, holding that a sitting President is not immune from civil litigation for private conduct that occurred before taking office.

  • U.S. Supreme Court: Granted certiorari to determine whether a sitting President is immune from civil litigation for unofficial acts before assuming office.

Issue

  • Does President have immunity from civil suits for pre-office conduct?

Analysis

  • No constitutional basis for immunity.

  • Lawsuit won’t burden duties.

  • No special treatment for private conduct.

Holding

  • No, President is not immune.

Trump v. United States (2024)
Facts

  • Trump indicted for election conduct; claimed immunity.

Issue

  • Does former president have absolute immunity for official acts?

Rule(s)

  • Presidents have civil immunity for official acts (Nixon), but can be sued for unofficial conduct (Clinton).

Analysis

  • Immunity for core powers.

  • Presumptive immunity for official acts; no immunity for unofficial acts.

Holding

  • Absolute immunity for exclusive authority acts; presumptive immunity for other official acts; no immunity for unofficial acts.

Concurrences (Thomas & Barrett)

  • Thomas questions the Special Counsel’s authority to prosecute Trump.

  • Barrett disagrees with restrictions on using official acts as evidence.

Dissents (Sotomayor & Jackson)

  • Both dissenters argue that the decision shields Presidents from accountability.

  • Sotomayor warns that this ruling places Presidents above the law.

  • Jackson says the ruling fundamentally changes how Presidents are held accountable for crimes.

Takeaway from Class Notes

Presidential immunity:

  • Civil liability:

    • Official acts: absolute immunity.

    • Unofficial acts: no immunity.

  • Criminal liability:

    • Core presidential powers