Anne Joseph O'Connell on the New Jersey U.S. Attorney Matter
President Trump yesterday evening withdrew the nomination of Alina Habba for U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey so that Attorney General Pam Bondi could appoint Habba as the “first assistant” in the U.S. attorney’s office—with the aim of positioning Habba to serve as U.S. attorney in an acting capacity. This came after DOJ, purportedly pursuant to the president’s authority, fired the official who was appointed by a panel of district judges to serve as interim U.S. attorney.We’re pleased to welcome Anne Joseph O’Connell, the Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, as our first guest on Executive Functions Chat to break down the relevant legal issues in this saga and discuss the broader legal landscape. Get full access to Executive Functions at executivefunctions.substack.com/subscribe
--------
19:04
--------
19:04
Does It Matter That Companies Are Disregarding the TikTok Ban?
We discuss the response of TikTok providers to the administration’s non-enforcement pledges—including the companies’ legal liability and whether their responsibility to comply with the law runs past potential liability.Read Bob’s piece from yesterday about the providers’ conduct here.And check out Jack’s assessments of the legal basis for the non-enforcement of the statute here and here. Get full access to Executive Functions at executivefunctions.substack.com/subscribe
--------
22:14
--------
22:14
Was the Court Right to Allow the Administration’s Workforce Reductions Plans to Go Forward?
We discuss the Supreme Court’s Tuesday stay of the district court order blocking implementation of the reductions-in-force executive order. Jack thinks the Court got it right. Bob is skeptical.Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to Executive Functions. Get full access to Executive Functions at executivefunctions.substack.com/subscribe
--------
27:53
--------
27:53
Did the Supreme Court 'Meet the Moment' in Trump v. Casa?
We break down the opinions in Trump v. Casa—including the majority opinion’s statements on Solicitor General John Sauer’s concession to the bindingness of the Court’s judgments and opinions on the executive branch, the narrow scope of the majority, the opposing conceptions of the Court’s role in the majority and in Justice Jackson’s dissent, and how challenges to birthright citizenship are likely to proceed from here. Read Jack’s post from Sunday arguing that the Supreme Court was the clear winner in this ruling.Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to Executive Functions. Get full access to Executive Functions at executivefunctions.substack.com/subscribe
--------
30:36
--------
30:36
Was the Iran Attack Constitutional?
Jack argued early this week that it’s impossible to know whether the U.S. attack against Iran was constitutional “because the constitutional law of war powers is inscrutable.” Bob responded to Jack’s post, contending that although executive branch legal opinions provide support for the attack, that doesn’t resolve the constitutional problem.On this episode, we disagree about the constitutionality of this particular attack, but we agree that our war powers law has reached an unfortunate state of presidential dominance. Get full access to Executive Functions at executivefunctions.substack.com/subscribe
Deutschland