United States Law and Policy – The Law and Policy Blog

Looking critically at Trump’s flurry of Executive Orders: why we should watch what is done, and not to be distracted by what is said

21st January 2025

Around Westminster, the most useful guides to the nature of modern politics may not be the journalists and commentators, still less the ‘think tanks’ with their portentous names and solemn but flimsy ‘reports’.

They are perhaps instead the con-artist conjurers on Westminster Bridge – whose activities are detailed in this fine piece.

For it is these lowly tricksters that remind us that we should watch what is done, and not to be distracted by anything else.

The Conjurer, painted by Hieronymus Bosch

In the United States and the United Kingdom there is currently a lot of noise and a lot of misdirection.

As a famous chess player once observed:

“The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.”

The constant noise and endless misdirections are indeed exhausting.

By the time any of the noise and misdirections are translated into action (or inaction), you are tired to notice and others will be too tired to care.

We will be onto the next outrage, and then the next, and the next.

The hard thing is to separate out what is done (and not done) from what is said.

In the United States there has been a flurry of Executive Orders from the newly inaugurated President Donald Trump.

This sounds very impressive, and it sounds very scary.

But, an Executive Order is not a precise thing – it is a generic term to describe a range of documents that can come from the President.

As this US academic explains:

Some of these Executive Orders will be instruments provided for and envisaged by pre-exisiting enacted legislation: and these will usually have direct legal effect.

Others will have no legal framework and have no legal basis for having any effect.

Many will range between these two extremes.

All will be ‘Executive Orders’ put forward and signed by the President – but pretty much that is all they will have in common.

And according to another US observer, many of these Executive orders are not even of serviceable quality:

This is not surprising: competent legal drafting is not easy, and many of these “Executive Orders” are from pressure groups and professional antagonisers.

Like the Truss legal letter recently examined on this blog, what you have here are media-political devices disguised in the form of legal documents.

But it is a mask, and what we are seeing is essentially a masquerade.

This is not to say that some – maybe many – of these Executive Orders are not going to have adverse effects for somebody – especially in the short term.

Indeed, given the many partisan conservative judges now on the federal bench, there will be energetic judicial exertions to give effect to otherwise shoddy Executive Orders.

But what it does mean is that we should be careful not to accept everything at face value.

For a flurry of Executive Orders may be little different from a flurry of Press Releases.

And we should be mindful that we are dealing with con-artist conjurers.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

Of Indictments and Impeachments, and of Donald Trump – two similar words for two distinct things

16th January 2025

Over at Prospect, for this my “weekly constitutional” post I have done something on why the ultimate fault for Trump not being held to account for what he did on 6 January four years ago is not with the failed, now effectively out-of-time prosecution, but with the fact it was not dealt with properly by the Senate when Trump was impeached.

This was something which should have been dealt with by impeachment, not indictment.

It was the wrong i———ment word.

This is not to say there are not problems with the prosecution, and I mentioned some of these in a post here a couple of days ago, when the special prosecutor’s report was published.

But.

Even taking the prosecution at its highest, it was wrong tool for the job.

When the Senate acquitted Trump over what he did on 6 January 2021 and so did not disqualify him from office (a political and not a legal sanction), all else followed.

What Trump did on 6 January 2021 also fitted various general criminal offences according to the published report, but that was incidental.

It was essentially a political wrong – and so it should have been dealt with by political means.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

Why did the DoJ prosecution of Trump run out of time?

14th January 2025

How was Trump able to time-out a significant prosecution?

The volume of the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) report dealing with the prosecution of Donald Trump over the event of 6 January four years ago has just been published.

It will take time to digest – and please note this blog is not written by an American lawyer.

But there is one key question that has to be asked of the report and the failed prosecution it details and describes.

And it goes to the last portion of the report:

“but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”

This balanced CNN report from earlier this year provides informed views as to the delays, with defenders and critics of the DoJ process both quoted.

My preliminary view as a commentator on litigation matters is that the prosecution underestimated the effective lawyering of Trump’s advisers and also underestimated how the courts may go against them.

They had what seemed a one-sided litigation strategy – that is to say, not a meaningful litigation strategy at all.

If a party to a dispute has absolute control over events, it does not need a strategy.

A litigation strategy instead is needed so as to anticipate and deal with what the other parties can and will do, and what the courts can and will do.

Trump’s lawyers had a strategy of delay and obstruction – and it worked very effectively, at least with the federal prosecutions (though not entirely, of course, with the New York fraud prosecution, though they still ensured the sentencing there was too late so as to be meaningless).

Not for the first time, those who though they had the measure of Trump underestimated his sheer will for survival.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

Some of President Carter’s judges can still judge, 44 years later – and so we can see how long Trump’s new nominees will be on the bench

New year’s eve, 2024

The former US President Jimmy Carter, who has just died, left office in January 1981 – just under 44 years ago.

Yet one of his many bench nominees was still actively serving as a federal judge as recently as 2021:

And that list also indicates that about 29 of those judges – while not on active service – have the semi-retired “senior status” and so can still serve as judges if required.

This shows the significant lingering power of every US President on the shape of the judiciary.

A 100 year-old president former president has died who left office over 40 years ago, and yet his appointments can still decide cases.

Bringing this around to today: the newly re-elected Donald Trump and the Republican Senate will be appointing a raft of young conservative judges to the judicial benches, in addition to those which were appointed during his first term.

And some of these will still be judging (or able to judge) in 40 or 50 years – long after many of you reading this post may be here.

The lingering effect of the two Trumpite moments will last for political generations. Some appointed judges may see out ten or more presidential terms and still be judging.

And judicial time limits are now more unlikely than ever: Trump and the Republican senators have no interest whatsoever in limiting the enduring power of their nominees. And presumably as and when (or if) the Democrats ever regain power, they will have no interest in limiting the terms of their appointees.

This is a practical effect of how what some say (or hope) may only be short-term political surges can have consequences that will last decades.

(See also: Brexit.)

We are not dealing only with the politics of the here and now, but about the law and government of the hereafter.

Perhaps things will one day get better for liberals and progressives.

Perhaps.

But it is going to be a long haul.

Happy new year to the readers of this blog.

Thank you for your ongoing support.

There is going to be a lot to write about in the new year – and I am also going to explore the law and policy of AI, following my Candlemas story.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

The illiberalism yet to come: two things not to do, and one thing to do – suggestions on how to avoid mental and emotional exhaustion

18th November 2024

The new Republican presidency-congress in the United States as well as developments in other countries mean that in addition to the illiberalism we have had so far, there is more – perhaps worse – to come.

So how should liberals respond?

Here are three suggestions, humbly put forward.

1. Do not respond, if you can, to catastrophism. You are going to think how bad things can be, and will project this on to the other side. You will then react to what your mind has conjured up. Even if those projections are plausible, this will exhaust you quickly. You will have little energy or focus left for what they do come up with.

2. Do not respond, if you can, to what the illiberals say they will do. They will goad you and frighten you, as they enjoy “owning the libs”. They like the sound it makes, the reactions they can get. Again, even if these threats are plausible, reacting to each bare threat will exhaust you quickly. You will again have little energy or focus left for what they do come up with.

3. Respond, if you can, to what they actually do – not what you fear they will do, or even what they say they will do. What they actually will do will be bad enough, and will need your energy and focus. The illiberals will hope – and expect – that all the noise and fears under (1) and (2) will mean that by the time they do put measures forward, they will have little opposition.

As Margo Channing in All About Eve said, we are are in for a bumpy ride.

We don’t need to make it even bumpier for ourselves.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

New stories for old – making sense of a political-constitutional rupture

14th November 2024

LAUNCELOT: I will send help as soon as I have accomplished a daring and heroic rescue in my own particular…

CONCORDE: Idiom, sir?

LAUNCELOT: …idiom!

– Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail

Last week, before the US presidential election, there was uncertainty.

(This blog recorded that moment here.)

Few if any people had any idea about what would happen next.

Now many people are getting used to the news of the election, even if they are not happy (to say the least) with what happened.

For many, the re-election of Donald Trump as president was not how the story of 2016 was supposed to end.

His presidency was supposed to have been a one-off, an aberration. It was to be regarded as a moment of electoral madness, albeit one which has had unfortunate lingering structural effects for the composition of the supreme court and other judicial benches for at least a generation.

In this way the story was seen as similar to that of Brexit in the United Kingdom, where another 2016 moment of electoral madness also had unfortunate lingering structural effects – in that case of the United Kingdom being outside the European Union for at least a generation.

And now, that perhaps comforting sense of distance has been snatched away.

It is instead happening again.

“Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was, Oh no, not again.”

– The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams

This time round, of course, the rookies of the first presidency are now seasoned veterans – with four years’ experience and a further four years’ reflection of the failures of the first presidency.

In 1852, Karl Marx wrote of the return of a Napoleon Bonaparte to power in France (emphasis added):

“Hegel remarks somewherethat all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Caussidière for Danton, Louis Blanc for Robespierre, the Montagne of 1848 to 1851for the Montagne of 1793 to 1795, the nephew for the uncle. And the same caricature occurs in the circumstances of the second edition of the Eighteenth Brumaire.”

Given the mishaps of the first Trump presidency, it looks like Marx’s famous maxim should now be adapted to read “the first time as farce, the second time as tragedy”.

“Here’s where the story ends
Oh, here’s where the story ends

It’s that little souvenir, of a terrible year, which makes my eyes feel sore”

– The Sundays

But.

Nothing is certain in human affairs, and the new presidency may not actually go the way its supporters hope (and the rest of us fear).

Over on Bluesky, the always thoughtful and perceptive “The Stylite” commenter averred the following:

In 2019 in the United Kingdom, of course, the gods punished Boris Johnson by granting him what he wanted – a huge majority and a general election mandate. The “big dog” caught the car.

And soon Johnson was gone, not only from Downing Street but also from Parliament.

What happened in 2016 had created an opportunity for the populists – and 2019 was when that opportunity was flunked.

Could 2024 be the 2019 of the United States?

In the United States, Trump and the Trumpites are generally oppositional – grievance-mongers and complainers about the Washington elite and so on.

It is not a mindset that adapts well to actual government.

And although there is “Project 2025” – there is otherwise little sense of what the new administration will actually do. The early appointments do not indicate any great seriousness.

Will the gods punish Trump and the Trumpites with also giving them what they want?

Who knows.

But whatever happens, the old story of Trump’s election in 2016 being a one-off has to be replaced with a new story – one which has not taken shape.

And until and unless those opposed to Trump can make sense of what has happened, then there is little chance that they will revive to take advantage of any failures and disappointments in what is to come – to escape this dreadful moment.

CONCORDE: Quickly, sir! This way!

LAUNCELOT: No, it’s not in my idiom! I must escape more….

CONCORDE: Dramatically, sir?

LAUNCELOT: …dramatically!

– Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

The shapes of things to come – some thoughts and speculations on the possibilities of what can happen next

8th November 2024

The working assumption of many in reaction to the re-election of Trump as President is that he will serve a full term.

And that is the most likely outcome, as that is what presidents tend to do once elected: they serve out their term.

But there are other possible outcomes.

Some outcomes are morbid, and they are possibilities for any president, especially for one advanced in years.

And there is the possibility he may step down mid-term – or be replaced mid-term.

If Trump stands down mid-term, the new President Vance could pardon him for all and any federal crimes (though not state crimes). This would meet one of Trump’s presumed objectives for having re-run for President.

And if the timing of the replacement is done just right then a President Vance has the prospect of up to (but not quite) ten years in office: here the Twenty-second amendment to the US constitution provides:

“Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. […]”

If the replacement is done on the day after the second anniversary of the start of the term, then there would seem nothing to prevent a President Vance from then running for election and then re-election as President.

[Edit – in other terms: (2 years minus one day) plus 4 years plus 4 years.]

It can also be noted that in a way Trump has done his job for his backers in getting re-elected and, accordingly, there is nothing more he can personally do for them which another friendly occupant of the Oval Office cannot also do. If their objective is dominance over the medium- to long-term then they will be already thinking about the approach to the 2028 election.

And if there are doubts (real or otherwise) about the cognitive alertness of President Trump there is also the Twenty-fifth Amendment, where a President can be effectively removed against their will, on declaration of the (well) Vice-President and others.

On the other hand, a President Trump serving a full term may suit his backers just fine.

Trump is not a President to personally drive legislation through Congress – he is not a Lyndon Johnson or a Franklin Roosevelt.

But with a Republican Senate he does not need to do so: they can drive through the legislation themselves, subject to the final composition of the House of Representatives.

What a lazy president enables is for those around him to dominate the judicial nominations and discretionary powers.

So we can expect a raft of conservative nominations for the judicial benches – and for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to stand down and be replaced by 40 or 50 year-old strong conservatives, nominated by Trump and approved by the Senate. That will secure the Supreme Court for the conservatives for at least another twenty years, if not more.

And we can expect a huge amount of Executive Orders and such like, which in turn will be upheld by conservative judges – for who needs congressional legislation when you can have the combination of executive rule-making and nod-along judges?

Those around Trump will not be the inexperienced incoming staffers of the 2017 presidency, but people who know what to do and how to do it, many with hard experience of the first Trump presidency.

They will know what to do so as to fit things around a golf-playing president.

Trump himself may not be busy, but those around him will be.

Brace, brace.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

A postcard from the day after an election: capturing a further political-constitutional moment

6th November 2024

Yesterday things were unclear, and today things are all too clear.

Yesterday it looked as if Harris could win. On the evidence available to someone watching from England, there seemed no great enthusiasm for Trump either at his flagging under-attended rallies or elsewhere. There seemed no reason to believe he would do better than four years ago (or two years ago with his endorsed candidates).

But against that view was a sense of apprehension, if not doom. For, as this blog also averred, one could also too easily imagine Trump winning. Not because one could point to ‘factors’ (as a certain type of historian would put it), but just because he could – especially in this age of extreme political volatility.

And he has.

One trick of the human mind is to place shape and form onto events which at the time were uncertain, and so those who were themselves unclear as to what was about to happen tend to deftly switch to being very clear about what went wrong – and who was to blame.

From the perspective of this liberal constitutionalist blog the only points that seem worth making at this stage is about how the electoral system (at least in the United States but also elsewhere) is inefficient in certain respects.

Viz:

A candidate was a liar, known to be a liar and could easily be shown to be liar – but people voted for that candidate anyway.

A candidate was a convicted fraudster – but people voted for that candidate anyway.

A candidate was by any meaningful definition an insurrectionist – but people voted for that candidate anyway.

And a candidate was in the views of some serious people a fascist – but people voted for that candidate anyway.

This means that there is no point, in and of itself, showing a candidate to be a liar, fraudster, insurrectionist and/or a fascist if people do not actually care if that candidate is a liar, fraudster, insurrectionist and/or a fascist.

And so if the outputs of a media-political system of accountability – such as that offered by the lengthy US presidential campaign – do not gain purchase or traction, then the question is what is the purpose of a system of accountability.

The view that once a candidate is shown to be [X] then that would be enough for voters to not support that candidate falls apart when voters, knowing the candidate is [X], do not care.

What is the solution to this problem?

Perhaps there is no solution. As a Victorian politician once said to an earnest colleague: do you really believe there are solutions to political problems?

(One day I will track down that quotation.)

But a step towards a solution is to understand the nature of the problem.

The old media-political model of accountability – the Woodward and Bernstein model, if you will – is not working when you have a shameless candidate clapped and cheered by nod-along supporters.

And it is not a problem that is going to go away.

Yes, Trump is exceptionally charismatic – it is difficult to image a DeSantis or a Vance carrying a campaign like Trump. As such it is tempting to see him as a one-off and to just wait for him to go and for normality to return.

But there will be other Trumps, especially as the old gatekeepers in political parties and mainstream media fall away, and as illiberals become more adept at exploiting mass social media.

The one book which seems pertinent to all this originated in (of all years) 1984.

This was Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death – a book which should be better known.

His son wrote this brilliant short essay about that book and Trump in 2017, a lot which still stands today.

His son said:

“I wish I could tell you that, for all his prescience, my father also supplied a solution. He did not. He saw his job as identifying a serious, under-addressed problem, then asking a set of important questions about the problem. He knew it would be hard to find an easy answer to the damages wrought by “technopoly”. It was a systemic problem, one baked as much into our individual psyches as into our culture.”

His son then put forward some possible solutions. You may think of others. I cannot think of any.

How do you have accountability when people care not for the accounts that they are given?

When people know they are being lied to, but do not care?

I have no idea.

The only conclusion I have is that it is time for a good cup of tea.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

A postcard from the day of an election – capturing a political-constitutional moment

5th November 2024

Today is the day of the American presidential election.

Sooner or later there should be a result – even if, like four years ago, there is drama (or worse) all the way into the new year. And when there is some sort of result then there will be those who will explain why that was always the most likely result. Such is the nature of punditry.

But today, all is uncertain.

On the face of it, it would seem that Harris should win. Trump does not seem stronger than he did four years ago – or two years ago when his endorsed candidates did badly. He is also a more divisive figure than he was when he won eight years ago, and he is against a less divisive candidate.

But, we are not in times where such a rational view has much purchase. We are in a period of populism and hyper-partisanship and disinformation, of joyful cruelty and illiberal frenzy. One can too easily imagine Trump winning. Less likely things have happened in the United States and around the world in recent years.

And if so, we will have an extraordinary situation of a president with criminal sanctions and facing criminal trials using the might of his office to reduce his exposure to any proceedings.

And we will have a president who boasts of wanting to also use the might of his office against political enemies, both personal and general.

The only liberal hope would be that, again, he is too lazy to follow-through on his threats, and that the swings he takes will be on the golf course, and not from the Oval Office.

In the days, weeks and months to come, things may be clearer – though even that cannot be said with absolute certainty – but as of today, things are unclear and they are worrying.

So it seemed to be a moment worth recording, using this blogpost as a postcard.

And to adapt the wording of a postcard: I wish we weren’t here.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

“…as a matter of law, the house is haunted” – a quick Hallowe’en post about law and lore

Hallowe’en 2024

As words ‘law’ and ‘lore’ can sound pretty much alike. And as things they are also very similar: that is a theme of this blog.

But from time to time the courts are asked to deal with (what we can call) capital-l Lore – that is (what we can call) Folklore.

One of the greatest examples is the (ahem) hallowed 1991 New York case of Stambovsky v Ackley – the case that provides us with that priceless quote above.

Here is the quote in context (broken into one-sentence paragraphs):

“Plaintiff, to his horror, discovered that the house he had recently contracted to purchase was widely reputed to be possessed by poltergeists, reportedly seen by defendant seller and members of her family on numerous occasions over the last nine years.

“Plaintiff promptly commenced this action seeking rescission of the contract of sale.

“Supreme Court reluctantly dismissed the complaint, holding that plaintiff has no remedy at law in this jurisdiction.

“The unusual facts of this case, as disclosed by the record, clearly warrant a grant of equitable relief to the buyer who, as a resident of New York City, cannot be expected to have any familiarity with the folklore of the Village of Nyack.

“Not being a “local”, plaintiff could not readily learn that the home he had contracted to purchase is haunted.

“Whether the source of the spectral apparitions seen by defendant seller are parapsychic or psychogenic, having reported their presence in both a national publication (Readers’ Digest) and the local press (in 1977 and 1982, respectively), defendant is estopped to deny their existence and, as a matter of law, the house is haunted.”

I am not an American lawyer, but on the basis of the fuller quote above, one gets the sense that the judge is being playful. The rest of the judgment affirms this view.

There are many ways the judge could have worded the point without saying that “as a matter of law, the house is haunted”.

(And as an English lawyer, the true Hallowe’en horror of the passage is that estoppel is a matter of equity and not a matter of law, but we shall let that pass.)

The judge could have simply said that the defendant was “estopped from going back on previous statements” or something similarly bland.

But the judge saw their chance to end their point with that wonderful wording, and the judge took it, much to the amusement or puzzlement of many American law students since.

For more on ghosts and the law, please see this absolutely superb paper by Canadian lawyer Michael Shortt – and a hat-tip to William Holmes at Legal Cheek for pointing to it.

(The Shortt paper is something I would love to have written, but I would not have done such a good job. It is brilliant.)

Happy Hallowe’en to all my readers.