DOCSLIB.ORG

Neomi Jehangir Rao

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Neomi Jehangir Rao UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR JUDICIAL NOMINEES PUBLIC 1. Name: State full name (include any fonner names used). Neomi Jehangir Rao 2. Position: State the position for which you have been nominated. United States Court of Appeals Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit 3. Address: List current office address. If city and state of residence differs from your place of employment, please list the city and state where you currently reside. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and Budget 1650 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20502 4. Birtl1place: State year and place of birth. 1973; Detroit, Michigan 5. Education: List in reverse chronological order each college, law school, or any other institution of higher education attended and indicate for each the dates of attendance, whether a degree was received, and the date each degree was received. 1996 - 1999, University of Chicago Law School; J.D. (with high honors), 1999 1991 -1995, Yale University; B.A. (cum laude), 1995 6. Employment Record: List in reverse chronological order all governmental agencies, business or professional corporations, companies, finns, or other enterprises, partnerships, institutions or organizations, non-profit or otherwise, with which you have been affiliated as an officer, director, partner, proprietor, or employee since graduation from college, whether or not you received payment for your services. Include the name and address of the employer and job title or description. 2017 - present Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and Budget 1650 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20502 Administrator 2006 - present Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University 3301 Fairfax Drive Arlington, Virginia 22201 Director and Founder, Center for the Study of the Administrative State (2015 - 2017) Associate Professor with tenure (2012 - present) Assistant Professor (2006 - 2012) [currently on leave] Fall 2012 University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th A venue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Visiting Professor 2005 -2006 The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500 Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to the President 2002 -2005 Clifford Chance LLP 10 Upper Bank Street London, United Kingdom El4 5JJ Associate 2001 -2002 Honorable Clarence Thomas United States Supreme Court 1 First Street, N .E. Washington, D.C. 20543 Law Clerk 2000-2001 U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Counsel for Nominations and Constitutional Law 1999-2000 2 Honorable J. Harvie Wilkinson, III United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 255 West Main Street, Suite 230 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Law Clerk Summer 1998 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Summer Associate Summer 1998 Williams & Connolly LLP 725 12th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Summer Associate Summer 1997 Institute for Justice 901 North Glebe Road, Suite 900 Arlington, Virginia 22203 Law Clerk 1995 - 1996 The Weekly Standard 1152 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Reporter 7. MiJitarv Service and Draft Status: Identify any service in the U.S. Military, including dates of service, branch of service, rank or rate, serial number (if different from social security number) and type of discharge received, and whether you have registered for selective service. I have not served in the United States military. I was not required to register for selective service. 8. Honors and Awards: List any scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, academic or professional honors, honorary society memberships, military awards, and any other special recognition for outstanding service or achievement. Heritage Foundation Distinguished Alumni Award (2018) Network of Enlightened Women Empowered Woman of the Year Award (2018) Aspen Institute Young Professionals Program (2005 - 2006) 3 American Inns of Court Temple Bar Fellowship (2002) Order of the Coif, University of Chicago Law School (1999) Degree from the University of Chicago Law School conferred with high honors (1999) University of Chicago Law Review, Comment Editor (1998- 1999), Member (1997 - 1999) Harvard Journal ofLaw and Public Policy, Executive Editor (1998 - 1999) Humane Studies Fellowship, Institute for Humane Studies (1997, 1998) Madison Center Journalism Fellowship (1995 - 1996) Degree from Yale University conferred cum laude (1995) Ethics, Politics & Economics major, awarded high distinction (1995) Philosophy major, awarded high distinction (1995) 9. Bar Associations: List all bar associations or legal or judicial-related committees, selection panels or conferences of which you are or have been a member, and give the titles and dates of any offices which you have held in such groups. Administrative Conference of the United States, Public Member (2016 - 2017) American Bar Association (2006 - present) Administrative Law Section Council Member (2016- 2017) Co-Chair, Regulatory Policy Committee (2016- 2017) Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies (1996 - present) Regulatory Transparency Project, Regulatory Process Group (2017) Article I Project (2016 - 2017) Faculty Division (2006 - 2017) Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group, Executive Committee Member (2013 - 2017) International & National Security Practice Group, Executive Committee Member (2006 - 2013, estimated) University of Chicago Law School Chapter, President (1998 - 1999), Vice President for Speakers (1997 - 1998) American Association of Law Schools (2006 - 2017) Sections on Constitutional Law, Legislation & Law of the Political Process, Law & Interpretation 4 South Asian Bar Association ofNorth America (2010-present, estimated) International Bar Association (2002 - 2005) As an associate at Clifford Chance, I recall having memberships in several international arbitral organizations, but I no longer have records of such affiliations. 10. Bar and Court Admission: a. List the date(s) you were admitted to the bar of any state and any lapses in membership. Please explain the reason for any lapse in membership. Virginia (2002) There has been no lapse in membership. I am also a Qualified Solicitor of England and Wales. I am considered inactive. b. List all courts in which you have been admitted to practice, including dates of admission and any lapses in membership. Please explain the reason for any lapse in membership. Give the same information for administrative bodies that require special admission to practice. My private law practice was in England and before international arbitral tribunals. I am admitted to all Virginia courts, consistent with my active membership in the Virginia Bar. 11. Memberships: a. List all professional, business, fraternal, scholarly, civic, charitable, or other organizations, other than those listed in response to Questions 9 or 10 to which you belong, or to which you have belonged, since graduation from law school. Provide dates of membership or participation, and indicate any office you held. Include clubs, working groups, advisory or editorial boards, panels, committees, conferences, or publications. Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University George Mason Law Review, Faculty Advisor (2008 -2017) Administrative Law Clinic, Faculty Advisor (2016-2017) George Mason Women's Law Association, Faculty Advisor (2008 -2012, estimated) Dean Search Committee (2014 - 2015) Faculty Committees: Journals, Moot Court, and Trial Advocacy (Chair 2015 - 2017) Faculty Selection (2010 - 2011, 2016 - 2017) 5 Clerkship, Placement, and Alumni Development (Chair 2014-2015) (2006, 2008 -2013) Adjuncts, Professional Skills Courses, and Journals (Chair 2013 - 2014) (2007 - 2010) Admissions and Minority Recruitment (2007 - 2008, 2012 - 2013) Workshop Series (2013 - 2014) Curriculum (2015 - 2016) Yale Alumni Schools Committee (1996 - present) Woodley Park Community Association (2006 - present) International Bar Association Working Group on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (2003 - 2004) Although I found that I am listed on the Internet masthead of the Yale Free Press as a member of its Board of Advisors, I have not participated in the operation of the Free Press since graduating from Yale in 1995. b. The American Bar Association's Commentary to its Code of Judicial Conduct states that it is inappropriate for a judge to hold membership in any organization that invidiously discriminates on the basis of race, sex, or religion, or national origin. Indicate whether any of these organizations listed in response to l la above currently discriminate or formerly discriminated on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin either through formal membership requirements or the practical implementation of membership policies. If so, describe any action you have taken to change these policies and practices. To the best of my knowledge, none of the organizations listed above currently discriminates or formerly discriminated on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin, either through formal membership requirements or the practical implementation of membership policies. 12. Published Writings and Public Statements: a. List the titles, publishers, and dates of books, articles, reports, letters to the editor, editorial pieces, or other published material you have written or edited, including material published only on the Internet. Supply four (4) copies of all published material to the Committee. The Trump
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shredding the Social Safety Net
    Shredding the Social Safety Net Introduction The coronavirus pandemic of 2020 has revealed an urgent need to shore up our nation’s infrastructure for supporting public health and welfare, as millions of Americans struggle to access health care and financial resources. Yet that infrastructure is in fact more endangered than ever – thanks in large part to a quiet right-wing revolution that has been taking place within the federal court system. Even after the current health crisis is over, this transformation will have the potential to change the nature of American life and, if it proceeds unchecked, could effectively choke off the next president’s ability to govern. Through strategic appointments to the federal bench, the far right has in recent years achieved astonishing progress toward its long-held goal to do away with a wide range of government powers and authorities that it sees as impeding the “free market.” Most alarmingly, these efforts have been focused on using the federal courts as tools to gut protections for public health, safety and welfare. It’s a plan that aims to do nothing less than to shred the social safety net that has underpinned American society for decades, including all the landmark achievements of the New Deal. No electorate would ever vote for candidates pledging to dirty the water, pollute the air, deprive senior citizens of Social Security or strip health care coverage for people with preexisting conditions. So Republicans have chosen to pursue these goals through the federal courts, which essentially allows them to achieve their ends while flying under the radar.
    [Show full text]
  • Contempt of Courts? President Trump's
    CONTEMPT OF COURTS? PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TRANSFORMATION OF THE JUDICIARY Brendan Williams* Faced with a letter from the American Bar Association (ABA) assessing him as “arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice,” Lawrence VanDyke, nominated by President Trump to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, cried during an October 2019 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.1 Republican senators dutifully attacked the ABA as liberally-biased.2 In a Wall Street Journal column, a defender of VanDyke assailed what he called a “smear campaign” and wrote that “[t]he ABA’s aggressive politicization is especially frustrating for someone like me, an active member of the ABA[.]”3 VanDyke was confirmed anyway.4 Contrary to Republican protestations, the ABA has deemed 97% of President Trump’s nominees to be “well qualified” or “qualified.”5 Indeed, in the most polarizing judicial nomination of the Trump Administration, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh’s defenders pointed to the ABA having rated him “well qualified” despite the association having once, in 2006, dropped his rating to “qualified” due to concerns about his temperament.6 *Attorney Brendan Williams is the author of over 30 law review articles, predominantly on civil rights and health care issues. A former Washington Supreme Court judicial clerk, Brendan is a New Hampshire long-term care advocate. This article is dedicated to his father Wayne Williams, admitted to the Washington bar in 1970. 1Hannah Knowles, Trump Judicial Nominee Cries over Scathing Letter from the American Bar Association, WASH. POST (Oct. 30, 2015). 2Id.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump Judges: Even More Extreme Than Reagan and Bush Judges
    Trump Judges: Even More Extreme Than Reagan and Bush Judges September 3, 2020 Executive Summary In June, President Donald Trump pledged to release a new short list of potential Supreme Court nominees by September 1, 2020, for his consideration should he be reelected in November. While Trump has not yet released such a list, it likely would include several people he has already picked for powerful lifetime seats on the federal courts of appeals. Trump appointees' records raise alarms about the extremism they would bring to the highest court in the United States – and the people he would put on the appellate bench if he is reelected to a second term. According to People For the American Way’s ongoing research, these judges (including those likely to be on Trump’s short list), have written or joined more than 100 opinions or dissents as of August 31 that are so far to the right that in nearly one out of every four cases we have reviewed, other Republican-appointed judges, including those on Trump’s previous Supreme Court short lists, have disagreed with them.1 Considering that every Republican president since Ronald Reagan has made a considerable effort to pick very conservative judges, the likelihood that Trump could elevate even more of his extreme judicial picks raises serious concerns. On issues including reproductive rights, voting rights, police violence, gun safety, consumer rights against corporations, and the environment, Trump judges have consistently sided with right-wing special interests over the American people – even measured against other Republican-appointed judges. Many of these cases concern majority rulings issued or joined by Trump judges.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts
    GETTY STEELE IMAGES/KIM Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts By Democracy and Government Reform Team February 2020 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts By Democracy and Government Reform Team February 2020 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 7 The demographic compositions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals 10 1st Circuit 23 8th Circuit 12 2nd Circuit 25 9th Circuit 14 3rd Circuit 27 10th Circuit 16 4th Circuit 29 11th Circuit 18 5th Circuit 31 D.C. Circuit 20 6th Circuit 32 Federal Circuit 22 7th Circuit 33 The demographic compositions of the U.S. District Courts 36 District courts housed 66 District courts housed within the 1st Circuit within the 7th Circuit 39 District courts housed 71 District courts housed within the 2nd Circuit within the 8th Circuit 44 District courts housed 76 District courts housed within the 3rd Circuit within the 9th Circuit 48 District courts housed 86 District courts housed within the 4th Circuit within the 10th Circuit 54 District courts housed 91 District courts housed within the 5th Circuit within the 11th Circuit 60 District courts housed 97 District court housed within the 6th Circuit within the D.C. Circuit 110 Conclusion 111 Endnotes Introduction and summary Authors’ note: This report reflects data as of November 18, 2019. Its main goal is to provide advocates and policymakers with an accessible resource demonstrating general trends pertaining to the lack of demographic diversity across all of the lower federal courts. Some individual data points may have altered slightly between November and publication and are not reflected within this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Deconstructing the Administrative State: Chevron Debates and the Transformation of Constitutional Politics
    DECONSTRUCTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE: CHEVRON DEBATES AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL POLITICS CRAIG GREEN* ABSTRACT This Article contrasts Reagan-era conservative support for Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC with conservative opposition to Chevron deference today. That dramatic shift offers important context for understanding how future attacks on the administrative state will develop. Newly collected historical evidence shows a sharp pivot after President Obama’s reelection, and conservative opposition to Chevron deference has become stronger ever since. The sudden emergence of anti-Chevron critiques, along with their continued growth during a Republican presidency, suggests that such arguments will increase in power and popularity for many years to come. Although critiques of Chevron invoke timeless rhetoric about constitutional structure, those critiques began at a very specific moment, and that historical coincidence fuels existing skepticism about such arguments’ substantive merit. This Article analyzes institutional questions surrounding Chevron with deliberate separation from modern politics. Regardless of one’s substantive opinions about President Trump, federal regulation, or administrative deference, this Article identifies extraordinary costs to the legal system of overruling Chevron through mechanisms of constitutional law. * Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law; Ph.D., Princeton University; J.D., Yale Law School. Many thanks for comments from participants at the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference and the Philadelphia Law Department’s Annual Conference. Thanks also for individual suggestions from Kent Barnett, Jane Baron, Pamela Bookman, Heather Elliott, Kellen Funk, Tara Leigh Grove, Joseph Hall, Jonathan Lipson, Jane Manners, Gillian Metzger, Henry Monaghan, Andrea Monroe, Lauren Ouziel, Rachel Rebouché, Dan Rodgers, and Neil Siegel.
    [Show full text]
  • Reporte Sobre La Magistratura En El Mundo
    Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación 25 de junio de 2020 Año XVII, no. 3,739 Reporte sobre la Magistratura en el Mundo (Reserva de Derechos: 04-2011-102610220300-102) El Salvador (La Prensa Gráfica): • "Esta Sala no puede devolver una atribución que el Órgano Ejecutivo nunca ha tenido": la respuesta de la Sala a la nota de Bukele. La Sala de lo Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia (CSJ) publicó la respuesta a la nota que el presidente Nayib Bukele envió hace tres días pidiendo que se le "devuelva sus facultades que expresamente le da la ley y que se le ha quitado vía sentencias". La Sala menciona que dicho escrito contiene, entre otras cosas, "una interpretación particular" de artículos del Código de Salud y de la Ley de Protección Civil, Prevención y Mitigación de Desastres que no han sido declarados inconstitucionales. "En respuesta a su petición, esta Sala le aclara: en primer lugar, que en el sistema constitucional salvadoreño vigente desde 1983 y de acuerdo con la jurisprudencia constante de este Tribunal, el Órgano Ejecutivo nunca ha tenido facultades para limitar por sí mismo los derechos fundamentales de las personas. La reserva de ley formal para restringir derechos de las personas, es decir, la exigencia de una ley aprobada por la Asamblea Legislativa y sancionada por la Presidencia de la República, es una premisa básica y fundamental que no puede soslayarse. En consecuencia, esta Sala no puede "devolver" una atribución que el Órgano Ejecutivo nunca ha tenido en la Constitución vigente", se lee en el documento de ocho páginas dirigido a Bukele.
    [Show full text]
  • Investiture of Eric D. Miller United States Circuit Judge
    INVESTITURE OF ERIC D. MILLER INVESTITURE OF UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE ERIC D. MILLER UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT Monday, May 20, 2019 Monday, May 20, 2019 William Kenzo Nakamura United States Courthouse 1010 Fifth Avenue William Kenzo NakamuraSeattle, Washington United States Courthouse 1010 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington PRESIDING The Honorable Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit COURT CRIER Robert M. Walch Senior Deputy Clerk United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit INVOCATION The Reverend Doyt L. Conn, Jr. Rector, Epiphany Parish of Seattle REMARKS Teal Luthy Miller Eric B. Wolff Perkins Coie LLP William M. Jay Goodwin Procter LLP The Honorable Neomi Rao United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit The Honorable Laurence H. Silberman United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit READING OF THE COMMISSION Curtis E. Gannon Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel REMARKS AND ADMINISTRATION OF OATH The Honorable Clarence Thomas Supreme Court of the United States ROBING Roberta A. Miller Dale W. Miller Mattias Luthy Miller Greta Luthy Miller RESPONSE The Honorable Eric D. Miller United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit ADJOURNMENT Reception immediately following: The Rainier Club 820 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge Alfred T. Goodwin Marsha S. Berzon J. Clifford Wallace Richard C. Tallman Mary M. Schroeder Johnnie B. Rawlinson Jerome Farris Richard R. Clifton Dorothy W. Nelson Jay S. Bybee William C. Canby, Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • 13 Troubling Judicial Nominees You Missed This Year by Tony Hanna and Abbey Meller December 20, 2018
    13 Troubling Judicial Nominees You Missed This Year By Tony Hanna and Abbey Meller December 20, 2018 The bitter nomination process involving now-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which culminated in a contested confirmation vote on October 6, brought the importance of the federal judiciary to the forefront of American politi- cal consciousness. Around the country, tens of thousands of people rallied to protest the influence and effects of the judicial system on issues affecting everyone: health care reproductive rights, civil rights, disability justice, gun violence prevention, and more.1 Although Senate Republican leaders worked hard to shield Kavanaugh’s record from public oversight, hundreds of brave people risked arrest to protest both outside and inside Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing and, later, at the sham hear- ing2 to investigate the legitimate claim of sexual assault made against Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford. Yet, while concerned citizens were rightfully paying attention to the important debate taking place over the future of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump administration and its allies in the Senate were also busy reshaping the lower federal courts. This year, the Senate confirmed a record 65 lower court judges3 to lifetime seats on the federal judiciary. An additional 67 judicial nominees are currently pending Senate action;4 the Senate could still vote on these nominations before the end of the year. In short, the Trump administration and its allies in the Senate are working at a breakneck pace to turn the federal courts into a hyper-conservative body that will implement a partisan political agenda from the bench.
    [Show full text]
  • Federalist Paper Template
    THE Federalist PAPER THE MAGAZINE OF THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY • FEDSOC.ORG Summer 2018 THE FEATURES Federalist PAPER THE MAGAZINE OF THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY • FEDSOC.ORG BOARD OF DIRECTORS BOARD OF VISITORS Prof. Steven G. Calabresi, Chairman Mr. Christopher DeMuth, Co-Chairman Hon. David M. McIntosh, Vice Chairman Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, Co-Chairman Prof. Gary Lawson, Secretary Prof. Lillian BeVier Mr. Brent O. Hatch, Treasurer Mr. George T. Conway 4 National Student Hon. T. Kenneth Cribb Ms. Kimberly O. Dennis Hon. C. Boyden Gray Mr. Michael W. Gleba Symposium Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive VP Hon. Lois Haight Herrington Hon. Edwin Meese, III Hon. Donald Paul Hodel 6 Student Division Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President Hon. Frank Keating, II Hon. Michael B. Mukasey Hon. Gale Norton 8 Lawyers Chapters Hon. Lee Liberman Otis, Senior VP Hon. Theodore B. Olson Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz Mr. Andrew J. Redleaf Hon. William Bradford Reynolds 10 Faculty Division Ms. Diana Davis Spencer Mr. Theodore W. Ullyot 12 Practice Groups STAFF 14 Article I President Executive Vice President Senior Vice President Eugene B. Meyer Leonard A. Leo Lee Liberman Otis 16 State Courts & AGs Student Division Lawyers Chapters Peter Redpath, VP & Director Lisa Budzynski Ezell, VP & Director 17 Regulatory Kamron Kompani, Deputy Director Sarah Landeene, Deputy Director Transparency Kate Alcantara, Deputy Director Katherine Fugate, Associate Director Faculty Division Practice Groups 18 Membership Lee Liberman Otis, Director Dean Reuter, VP & General Counsel Laura Flint, Deputy Director Anthony Deardurff, Deputy Director Wesley G. Hodges, Associate Director 19 Resources Jennifer Weinberg, Associate Director Micah Wallen, Assistant Director Brigid Flaherty, Assistant Director Regulatory Transparency Project External Relations Devon Westhill, Director Jonathan Bunch, VP & Director Colton Graub, Project Assistant Peter Bisbee, Director, State Courts Elizabeth Cirri, Assistant Director Article I Initiative Nathan Kaczmarek, Director International Affairs James P.
    [Show full text]
  • The Minor Questions Doctrine
    The Minor Questions Doctrine Aaron L. Nielson CSAS Working Paper 20-24 Delegations and Nondelegation After Gundy THE MINOR QUESTIONS DOCTRINE 169 University of Pennsylvania Law Review (Forthcoming 2021) Aaron L. Nielson* Few aspects of administrative law are as controversial as the major questions doctrine—the exception to Chevron deference that bars courts from deferring to an agency’s otherwise reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute where doing so has extraordinary policy implications. Proponents of the major questions doctrine believe that the nation’s most significant questions should be decided by Congress, not agencies. The doctrine’s critics, however, counter that there is no sound reason to treat major questions differently from ordinary questions, if such a distinction even exists. The elevation of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, two major proponents of the major questions doctrine, has reignited the debate. Both the doctrine’s friends and foes expect that the Supreme Court will soon begin to more aggressively target major questions. This Article, however, argues that focusing on major questions is myopic. Minor questions—those bipartisan, “good government” policies that do not attract much attention but that affect countless individuals in small ways—also matter. Because of Chevron deference, Congress and the Executive Branch often have overlapping authority to tackle such minor questions. Yet if one branch acts, that decision confers positive externalities on the other branch: the non-acting branch benefits from a policy it wants without having to pay for it. When incentives are structured this way, collective-action dynamics may prevent either branch from acting. Critically, moreover, although ordinary politics often moots the need for judicial review of major questions, policy stagnation may be permanent for minor questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Power Transitions in a Troubled Democracy
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2021 Power Transitions in a Troubled Democracy Peter L. Strauss Columbia Law School, [email protected] Gillian E. Metzger Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Administrative Law Commons, American Politics Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Peter L. Strauss & Gillian E. Metzger, Power Transitions in a Troubled Democracy, LIBER AMICORUM D'ALBERTI, FORTHCOMING (2021). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2762 This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Power Transitions in a Troubled Democracy Peter L. Strauss and Gillian Metzger1 To honor Professor D’Alberti, this essay addresses the recent American experience of transi- tion between Presidents Trump and Biden, in the context of political power transitions in the United States more generally. Unlike the power transitions with which readers in parliamentary democracies may be familiar, the terms of office resulting from American elections are fixed and, as between members of Congress and the President, asynchronous.
    [Show full text]
  • Administration of Donald J. Trump, 2017 Nominations Submitted to The
    Administration of Donald J. Trump, 2017 Nominations Submitted to the Senate December 22, 2017 The following list does not include promotions of members of the Uniformed Services, nominations to the Service Academies, or nominations of Foreign Service officers. Submitted January 20 Terry Branstad, of Iowa, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the People's Republic of China. Benjamin S. Carson, Sr., of Florida, to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Elaine L. Chao, of Kentucky, to be Secretary of Transportation. Jay Clayton, of New York, to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission for a term expiring June 5, 2021, vice Daniel M. Gallagher, Jr. (term expired). Daniel Coats, of Indiana, to be Director of National Intelligence, vice James R. Clapper, Jr. Elisabeth Prince DeVos, of Michigan, to be Secretary of Education. David Friedman, of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Israel. Nikki R. Haley, of South Carolina, to be the Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, and the Representative of the United States of America in the Security Council of the United Nations. Nikki R. Haley, of South Carolina, to be Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations during her tenure of service as Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations. John F. Kelly, of Virginia, to be Secretary of Homeland Security.
    [Show full text]