Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in the U.S. Department of Justice offers binding legal advice to the executive branch, including the president. Its advice touches most aspects of law, but it is especially influential for its interpretation of constitutional provisions that rarely, if ever, are subject to judicial scrutiny. While its importance is acknowledged by journalists, law professors, and legal practitioners, political science has yet to incorporate OLC systematically into studies of the presidency outside the ambit of war and emergency powers—areas where OLC achieved notoriety during the George W. Bush administration. We argue that there are unique and important reasons for political scientists to study OLC beyond its War on Terror legacy. In this essay, we construct a theory‐driven research agenda for incorporating OLC into studies of the rhetorical and administrative presidencies, Neustadtian bargaining and the unilateral presidency, and transformative bureaucracy.

AbstractThis article reviews the causes, contours and potential consequences of President Donald J. Trump's 234 appointments to the federal judiciary. The causes will be familiar to political scientists who are fond of reminding people that "elections have consequences" and that the "Supreme Court [and by extension entire federal judiciary] follows the election returns." The contours of the Trump Judiciary are congruent with Trump's campaign promise to appoint judges "in the mold of Justice Scalia," the conservative legal icon who died suddenly in February 2016. We show how Trump and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell made good on this promise with the help of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, appointing ideologically conservative, young, and mostly male and white judges to lifetime appointments on the federal bench. In laying out the potential consequences of Trump's remaking of the federal judiciary, we outline three areas where these judges are likely to make an impact on law and politics in the coming decades: rolling back liberal and progressive victories in the culture wars, likely in more subtle ways that align with Alison Gash's concept of "below-the-radar" legal change; extending the federal deregulation campaign that began in earnest with the Reagan Administration; and issuing rulings in the areas of voting rights, campaign finance, and redistricting that tip the scales of democracy in favor of Republican electoral outcomes.

This article catalogues and analyzes the litigating behavior of four of the leading New Christian Right Public Interest Law Firms (NCR PILFs). Consistent with the finding from judicial politics that all PILFs seek first and foremost to have policy influence, we find that most of the litigation these PILFs invest in is either explicitly or implicitly religious or mission driven. However, we also observe a trend of increased participation in secular cases by the two largest NCR PILFs in our study. Through in‐depth, qualitative content analysis of the briefs submitted in these secular cases, we show that while some of this behavior can be attributed to organizational maintenance or coalitional goals, most of this secular participation appears motivated by a desire to influence the legal rules rather than the outcome of the particular case. In doing so, this article shows how PILFs engage with an increasingly complex legal and political landscape.