DOCSLIB.ORG

Bulk Metadata Collection: Statutory and Constitutional Considerations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bulk Metadata Collection: Statutory and Constitutional Considerations BULK METADATA COLLECTION: STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS PROFESSOR LAURA K. DONOHUE* INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 759 I. BULK COLLECTION IN THE CONTEXT OF FISA’S GENERAL APPROACH ............................................ 766 A. Prior Domestic Surveillance ......................... 767 1. NSA Programs ......................................... 770 a. Project MINARET ............................. 772 b. Operation SHAMROCK .................. 773 2. Broader Context ...................................... 776 B. Protections Built into FISA ........................... 782 1. Entity Targeted Prior to Acquisition .... 784 2. Probable Cause and Showing of Criminal Wrongdoing Prior to Collection ................................................. 786 3. Minimization Procedures for Acquisition and Retention ..................... 791 4. Establishment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Court of Review ...................................... 792 C. Subsequent Amendment .............................. 793 1. Physical Search, Pen-Trap ..................... 794 * Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Christine Ciambella was invaluable in obtaining research materials. My appreciation also extends to the members of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy for their edits on the final Article. Special thanks to Hope Babcock, Bill Banks, Julie Cohen, George Jameson, Allegra MacLeod, Julie O’Sullivan, Milton Regan, Tanina Rostain, Kim Lane Scheppele, and Mike Seideman, for their comments on an earlier draft of this Article. In October 2013 an early version of this Article was placed online. Steve Vladeck, Laura Donohue’s Comprehensive Case Against Bulk Metadata Collection, JUST SECURITY (Oct. 23, 2013, 6:32 PM), http://justsecurity.org/2013/10/23/laura- donohues-comprehensive-case-bulk-metadata-collection/, [http://perma.cc/S6G5- FMTM]; see also Continued Oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Hear- ing Before the S. Comm. On the Judiciary, 113th Cong. (2013) (statement of Laura K. Donohue, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center). 758 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy [Vol. 37 2. Business Records, Tangible Goods, and Section 215 ........................................ 797 D. Broad Surveillance in Place of Particularization ............................................ 803 1. Wholesale Collection of Information ... 803 2. Absence of Prior Targeting .................... 805 3. No Higher Threshold for U.S. Persons ..................................................... 806 E. Role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ......................................... 806 1. Reliance on NSA to Ascertain Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion ....... 807 a. Failure to Report Initial Noncompliance ................................. 808 b. Further Noncompliance .................. 814 c. FISC Response .................................. 817 d. Technological Gap ............................ 821 2. Issuance of Detailed Legal Reasoning and Creation of Precedent ..................... 822 3. Judicial Design ........................................ 825 a. Appointments ................................... 825 b. Order Rate ......................................... 831 II. BULK COLLECTION AND FISA’S STATUTORY PROVISIONS ............................................................ 836 A. “Relevant to an Authorized Investigation” ................................................. 836 1. Relevance Standard ................................ 838 2. Connection to “an Authorized Investigation” .......................................... 843 a. Collection of the Information ......... 843 b. Specificity .......................................... 847 c. Future Authorized Investigations .. 848 B. Subpoena Duces Tecum ............................... 850 1. Fishing Expeditions ................................ 853 2. Specificity ................................................. 854 3. Past Crimes .............................................. 856 4. March 2009 FISC Opinion ...................... 857 C. Evisceration of Pen-Trap Provisions........... 858 D. Potential Violation of Other Provisions of Criminal Law ................................................. 860 No. 3] Bulk Metadata Collection 759 III. CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ................... 863 A. The Problem with Smith v. Maryland .......... 865 B. More Intrusive Technologies and Their Impact on Privacy .......................................... 871 C. Judicial Tension: Trespass and Katz’s Reasonable Expectation of Privacy ............. 874 1. The Prohibition on General Warrants ................................................... 875 2. Search of Metadata and the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy ....... 884 D. The Proverbial Needle in the Haystack ...... 892 IV. CONCLUSION ......................................................... 897 INTRODUCTION On May 24, 2006, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) approved an FBI application for an order, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1861, requiring Verizon to turn over all telephony metadata to the National Security Agency.1 The Court subse- quently approved similar applications for all major U.S. tele- communication service providers. Over the next seven years, FISC issued orders renewing the bulk collection program thir- ty-four times.2 Almost all of the information obtained related to 1. In re Application of the Fed. Bureau of Investigation for an Order Requiring the Prod. of Tangible Things from [Telecommunications Providers] Relating to [REDACTED], Order, No. BR 0605 (FISA Ct. May 24, 2006), available at https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/docket_06- 05_1dec201_redacted.ex_-_ocr_0.pdf, [http://perma.cc/MT9D-4W2Y] (released by court order as part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Freedom of Infor- mation Act (FOIA) litigation). Note that the specific telecommunications compa- nies from which such records were sought were redacted, as well as the remain- ing title; the government, however, also released an NSA report that provided more detail on the title of the Order. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GEN., NAT’L SEC. AGENCY, ST-06-0018, ASSESSMENT OF MANAGEMENT CONTROLS FOR IMPLEMENT- ING THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT ORDER: TELEPHONY BUSI- NESS RECORDS, available at http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/section/pub_Feb% 2012%202009%20Memorandum%20of%20US.pdf, [http://perma.cc/YXA7-PTT4] (see page 94 of 1846 and 1862 Production). For purposes of a more precise citation, I draw from both sources. 2. ADMINISTRATION WHITE PAPER: BULK COLLECTION OF TELEPHONY METADA- TA UNDER SECTION 215 OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT 2 (Aug. 9, 2013), available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/750211-administration-white- 760 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy [Vol. 37 the activities of law-abiding persons who were not the subjects of any investigation.3 This program remained secret until mid-2013, when a combina- tion of leaks by Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) employee, and Freedom of Information Act litiga- tion launched by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, forced key documents into the public domain.4 In response, the Obama Ad- ministration issued statements, fact sheets, redacted FISC opin- ions, and even a White Paper, acknowledging the existence of the program and arguing that it is both legal and constitutional.5 According to these documents, the purpose of the telephony metadata program is to collect information related to counter- terrorism efforts and foreign intelligence.6 These data include all communications routing information, including (but not limited to) session identifying information (for example, origi- nating and terminating telephone number, identity of the communications device, etc.), trunk identifier, and time and duration of the call.7 The metadata collected as part of this pro- gram does not include the substantive content of communica- paper-section-215.html, [http://perma.cc/V7VM-5MAU] [hereinafter SECTION 215 WHITE PAPER]. 3. In re Prod. of Tangible Things From [REDACTED], No. BR 08-13, at 12 (FISA Ct. Mar. 2, 2009), available at http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/section/pub_ March%202%202009%20Order%20from%20FISC.pdf, [http://perma.cc/5LYL-RKAZ]. 4. Electronic Frontier Found. v. Dep’t of Justice, No. 4:11-cv-05221-YGR, at 2, ¶ 1(b) (N.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2013) (order responding to the request for records related to Section 215, i.e., orders and opinions of the FISC issued from January 1, 2004 to June 6, 2011, containing a significant legal interpretation of the government’s authority or use of its authority under Section 215; and responsive “significant documents, pro- cedures, or legal analyses incorporated into FISC opinions or orders and treated as binding by the Department of Justice or the National Security Agency”). 5. See, e.g., In re Application of the Fed. Bureau of Investigation for an Order Requiring the Prod. of Tangible Things from [Telecommunications Providers] Relating to [REDACTED], Order, No. BR 0605 (FISA Ct. May 24, 2006), available at https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/docket_06- 05_1dec201_redacted.ex_-_ocr_0.pdf, [http://perma.cc/MT9D-4W2Y] (released by court order as part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Freedom of Infor- mation Act (FOIA) litigation); SECTION 215 WHITE PAPER, supra note 2, at 2. 6. See, e.g., SECTION 215 WHITE PAPER, supra note 2, at 3 (“The Government can- not conduct substantive queries of the bulk records for any purpose other
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Algernon Sidney on Public Right
    University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review Volume 10 Issue 2 Article 3 1987 Algernon Sidney on Public Right Edward Dumbauld Follow this and additional works at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview Part of the European Law Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Edward Dumbauld, Algernon Sidney on Public Right, 10 U. ARK. LITTLE ROCK L. REV. 317 (1988). Available at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview/vol10/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review by an authorized editor of Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ALGERNON SIDNEY ON PUBLIC RIGHT Hon. Edward Dumbauld* In response to criticisms that the Declaration of Independence lacked originality,' its author Thomas Jefferson explained that the political purpose and object of that document was: not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the sub- ject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet cop- ied from any particular and previous writing,' it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulk Metadata Collection: Statutory and Constitutional Considerations
    BULK METADATA COLLECTION: STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Professor Laura K. Donohue* Georgetown Law INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 2 I. BULK COLLECTION RUNS CONTRARY TO FISA’S GENERAL APPROACH ....................................... 6 A. PRIOR DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 6 1. NSA Programs ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 2. Broader Context ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 B. PROTECTIONS BUILT INTO FISA ................................................................................................................................... 16 1. Entity Targeted Prior to Acquisition ................................................................................................................ 17 2. Probable Cause and Showing of Criminal Wrongdoing Prior to Collection .................................... 18 3. Minimization Procedures for Acquisition and Retention ........................................................................ 21 4. Establishment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Court of Review ..................
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Law Review
    COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW VOL. 99 DECEMBER 1999 NO. 8 GLOBALISM AND THE CONSTITUTION: TREATIES, NON-SELF-EXECUTION, AND THE ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING John C. Yoo* As the globalization of society and the economy accelerates, treaties will come to assume a significant role in the regulation of domestic affairs. This Article considers whether the Constitution, as originally understood, permits treaties to directly regulate the conduct of private parties without legislative implementation. It examines the relationship between the treaty power and the legislative power during the colonial, revolutionary, Framing, and early nationalperiods to reconstruct the Framers' understandings. It concludes that the Framers believed that treaties could not exercise domestic legislative power without the consent of Congress, because of the Constitution'screation of a nationallegislature that could independently execute treaty obligations. The Framers also anticipatedthat Congress's control over treaty implementa- tion through legislation would constitute an importantcheck on the executive branch'spower in foreign affairs. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................... 1956 I. Treaties, Non-Self-Execution, and the Internationalist View ..................................................... 1962 A. The Constitutional Text ................................ 1962 B. Globalization and the PoliticalBranches: Non-Self- Execution ............................................. 1967 C. Self-Execution: The InternationalistView ................
    [Show full text]
  • The Proliferation of Dissenting Opinions.Indb
    Cover Page The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/123230 holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation. Author: Sarmiento Lamus, A.D. Title: The proliferation of dissenting opinions in international law: A comparative analysis of the exercise of the right to dissent at the ICJ and IACtHR Issue Date: 2020-07-08 The proliferation of dissenting opinions in international law A comparative analysis of the exercise of the right to dissent at the ICJ and the IACtHR 544424-L-bw-Sarmiento 544424-L-bw-Sarmiento The proliferation of dissenting opinions in international law A comparative analysis of the exercise of the right to dissent at the ICJ and the IACtHR PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden, op gezag van Rector Magnificus prof. mr. C.J.J.M. Stolker, volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties te verdedigen op woensdag 8 juli 2020 klokke 16.15 uur door Andrés Dario Sarmiento Lamus geboren te Bogota, Colombia in 1985 544424-L-bw-Sarmiento Promotoren: Prof. dr. L.J. van den Herik Prof. dr. Y.A.A.S. Radi (Université Chatolique de Louivain) Promotiecommissie: Dr. J. Powderly Dr. G. Le Moli Prof. dr. E. Ferrer MacGregor (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México) Prof. dr. D. Kritsiotis (University of Nottingham, United Kingdom) Lay-out: AlphaZet prepress, Bodegraven Printwerk: Ipskamp Printing © 2020 A.D. Sarmiento Lamus Behoudens de in of krachtens de Auteurswet van 1912 gestelde uitzonderingen mag niets in deze uitgave worden verveelvoudigd, opgeslagen in een geautomatiseerd gegevensbestand of openbaar gemaakt, in enige vorm op enige wijze, hetzij elektronisch, mechanisch, door fotokopieën, opnamen of enige andere manier, zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de uitgever.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs
    The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs Oral History Project LAURENCE H. SILBERMAN Interviewed by: Charles Stuart Kennedy Initial interview date: September 23, 1998 Copyright 2000 ADST TABLE OF CONTENTS Background Born and raised in Pennsylvania and New Jersey Dartmouth College; Harvard Law School World War II influence McCarthy and communism President Eisenhower’s anti-McCarthy speech U.S. Army reserve Derek Bok influence Harvard politics Political views Hawaii - Private Law Practice 1961-1967 Labor law Union organizations Harry Bridges Senator Hiram Fong Republican Party Vietnam War sentiment Department of Labor - NLRB 1967-1969 Appellate lawyer Solicitor of Labor (General Counsel) Labor management affairs Department of Labor - Under Secretary 1970-1973 Nixon administration Secretary of Labor George Shultz Kissinger-Shultz comparison Nixon involvement Ehrlichman White House influence Unions’ political orientation George McGovern 1 Deputy Attorney General 1973-1975 Saturday Night Massacre Archibald Cox Yugoslavia - Ambassador 1975-1977 Recalling 1969-1970 ILO Geneva Conference U.S. unions anti-communism George Meany Lane Kirkland “Towards Presidential Control of the State Department” “Europe’s Fiddler on the Roof” Tito and tactics Soviet-West power struggle World War II fears Internal debate on Yugoslavia Kissinger views of USSR future U.S. ambassador’s 1974-1975 meeting Sonnenfeldt Doctrine Foreign Service officer (FSO) attitude towards political appointees Mack Toon Embassy friction DCM problems CODELs Understanding
    [Show full text]
  • The Law As King and the King As Law: Is a President Immune from Criminal Prosecution Before Impeachment? Eric M
    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship 1992 The Law as King and the King as Law: Is a President Immune from Criminal Prosecution Before Impeachment? Eric M. Freedman Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Eric M. Freedman, The Law as King and the King as Law: Is a President Immune from Criminal Prosecution Before Impeachment?, 20 Hastings Const. L.Q. 7 (1992) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/449 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Law as King and the King as Law: Is a President Immune from Criminal Prosecution Before Impeachment? By ERIC M. FREEDMAN* Table of Contents Introduction ................................................... 8 I. The Original Intents ................................. 15 II. The Historical Practice ............................... 22 A. The Federal Executive Branch ......................... 22 B. The Federal Judicial and Legislative Branches .......... 24 1. The Federal Judicial Branch ....................... 25 2. The Federal Legislative Branch ..................... 30 C. Federal Prosecution of State and Local Officials ......... 33 D. State-Level Practice ................................... 37 III. Theoretical Considerations ........................... 39 A. The Dual Nature of the Impeachment Clause .......... 41 B. The Rule of Law ...................................... 46 1. Civil Immunity .................................... 46 * Assistant Professor of Law, Hofstra University School of Law. J.D. 1979, B.A.
    [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]
  • Honorable Laurence H. Silberman
    HONORABLE LAURENCE H. SILBERMAN Oral History Project The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit Oral History Project U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t s The Historical Society of the D i s t r i c t o f C olumbia Circuit District of Columbia Circuit Honorable Laurence H. Silberman Interviews conducted by: Raymond J. Rasenberger, Esquire June 26, September 26, and December 13, 2001 January 25 and February 6, 2002 January 23 and February 4, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface . i Oral History Agreements Honorable Laurence H. Silberman Agreement. iii Authorization. v Raymond J. Rasenberger, Esq. vi Oral History Transcript of Interviews on: June 26, 2001 . 1 September 26, 2001 . 40 December 13, 2001 . 69 January 25, 2002 . 117 February 6, 2002 . 164 January 23, 2008 . 238 February 4, 2008 . 263 Index . A-1 Table of Cases and Statutes . A-22 Biographical Sketches Honorable Laurence H. Silberman . B-1 Raymond J. Rasenberger, Esq. B-3 Appendix I . C-1 The Origin of Affirmative Action as We Know It–The Philadelphia Plan Pivot, by Judge Silberman, October 10, 2001. Appendix II . D-1 “Will Lawyering Strangle Democratic Capitalism: a Retrospective,” by Judge Silberman, March 30, 2000. Appendix III . E-1 On the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Saturday Night Massacre, by Judge Silberman, June 24, 1999. Appendix IV . F-1 “Judge Silberman’s response to David Brock’s book,” Michael Barone Blog, August 18, 2006 NOTE The following pages record interviews conducted on the dates indicated. The interviews were electronically recorded, and the transcription was subsequently reviewed and edited by the interviewee.
    [Show full text]
  • Laurence H. Silberman Papers, 1947-1976
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf9p3006z7 No online items Register of the Laurence H. Silberman Papers, 1947-1976 Finding aid prepared by Rebecca J. Mead; machine-readable finding aid created by Xiuzhi Zhou Hoover Institution Archives 434 Galvez Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA, 94305-6010 (650) 723-3563 [email protected] © 1998 Register of the Laurence H. 83031 1 Silberman Papers, 1947-1976 Title: Laurence H. Silberman Papers Date: 1947-1976 Collection Number: 83031 Contributing Institution: Hoover Institution Archives Language of Material: English Physical Description: 50 manuscript boxes, 1 phonotape, 1 envelope(20.8 linear feet) Abstract: Correspondence, speeches and writings, memoranda, reports, studies, testimony, legal documents, printed matter, and photographs, relating to U.S. government domestic policy during the presidential administrations of Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford, labor relations, investigations of the United Mine Workers, equal employment opportunity policies, and judicial proceedings. Location note: Hoover Institution Archives. Creator: Silberman, Laurence H. (Laurence Hirsch), 1935- Access Collection is open for research. The Hoover Institution Archives only allows access to copies of audiovisual items. To listen to sound recordings or to view videos or films during your visit, please contact the Archives at least two working days before your arrival. We will then advise you of the accessibility of the material you wish to see or hear. Please note that not all audiovisual material
    [Show full text]
  • Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh: His Jurisprudence and Potential Impact on the Supreme Court
    Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh: His Jurisprudence and Potential Impact on the Supreme Court Andrew Nolan, Coordinator Section Research Manager Caitlain Devereaux Lewis, Coordinator Legislative Attorney August 21, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R45293 SUMMARY R45293 Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh: His Jurisprudence August 21, 2018 and Potential Impact on the Supreme Court Andrew Nolan, On July 9, 2018, President Donald J. Trump announced the nomination of Judge Brett M. Coordinator Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) to fill Section Research Manager retiring Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. [email protected] Nominated to the D.C. Circuit by President George W. Bush, Judge Kavanaugh has served on Caitlain Devereaux Lewis, that court for more than twelve years. In his role as a Circuit Judge, the nominee has authored Coordinator roughly three hundred opinions (including majority opinions, concurrences, and dissents) and Legislative Attorney adjudicated numerous high-profile cases concerning, among other things, the status of wartime [email protected] detainees held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; the constitutionality of the current structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; the validity of rules issued by the For a copy of the full report, Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act; and the legality of the Federal please call 7-5700 or visit Communications Commission’s net neutrality rule. Since joining the D.C. Circuit, Judge www.crs.gov. Kavanaugh has also taught courses on the separation of powers, national security law, and constitutional interpretation at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and the Georgetown University Law Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Internal Separation of Powers: Checking Today's Most Dangerous Branch from Within
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2006 Internal Separation of Powers: Checking Today's Most Dangerous Branch from Within Neal K. Katyal Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1882 https://ssrn.com/abstract=900820 115 Yale L.J. 2314 (2005-2006) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Legislation Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons NEAL KUMAR KATYAL Internal Separation of Powers: Checking Today's Most Dangerous Branch from Within ABSTRACT. The standard conception of separation of powers presumes three branches with equivalent ambitions of maximizing their powers. Today, however, legislative abdication is the reigning modus operandi. Instead of bemoaning this state of affairs, this Essay asks how separation of powers can be reflected within the executive branch when that branch, not the legislature, is making much of the law today. The first-best concept of "legislature v. executive" checks and balances must be updated to contemplate second-best "executive v. executive" divisions. A critical mechanism to promote internal separation of powers is bureaucracy. Much maligned by both the political left and right, bureaucracy serves crucial functions. It creates a civil service not beholden to any particular administration and a cadre of experts with a long- term institutional worldview. This Essay therefore proposes a set of mechanisms that can create checks and balances within the executive branch in the foreign affairs area.
    [Show full text]
  • Brett Kavanaugh Nominee for the U.S
    Brett Kavanaugh Nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Brief Biography • Age 39. Born February 12, 1965. • B.A. cum laude, Yale 1987. • J.D., Yale 1990. • Law Clerk for: o Walter Stapelton, Third Circuit, 1990-91. o Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit, 1991-92. o Anthony Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court, 1993-94. • Attorney in the Office of U.S. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, 1992-93. • Associate Counsel in the Office of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, 1994-97, 1998. • Partner at Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, D.C., 1997-98 & 1999-2001. • Associate White House Counsel 2001-03. • Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary 2003-present. President Bush’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit exemplifies the White House’s reliance on ideology over merit in selecting judicial nominees. Kavanaugh appears to have been chosen for a D.C. Circuit seat only because of his involvement in some of the most ideologically charged issues of his time. As an associate counsel in the office of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, Kavanaugh, among other responsibilities: (1) pursued unfounded allegations that Clinton White House deputy counsel Vince Foster was murdered rather than committing suicide, (2) worked on the Monica Lewinsky investigation, and (3) drafted the grounds for impeachment section of the Starr Report Congress. Kavanaugh’s views of executive privilege reveal his excessive partisanship. In the Independent Counsel’s office, Kavanaugh was responsible for challenging the Clinton Administration’s claims of privilege, testing the boundaries of executive and other privileges in order to gain more information for the Starr investigation.
    [Show full text]