Noah Feldman

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: There wasn’t much President Joe Biden could have done about this month’s Texas energy disaster. Ditto the slow-moving vaccine rollout. The reason is the same: federalism, a system dating back to the 1780s and only seriously overhauled once. Although federalism still has some benefits, its obsolescence is increasingly obvious when the U.S. faces crises that, like climate change and Covid-19, don’t respect state boundaries. Energy and health care are only two of the crucial infrastructure systems that remain state-regulated or state-run. And many of those systems are in need of updating everywhere — not piecemeal, as federalism tends to support. Federalism was, in important ways, an American invention — the brainchild of James Madison. It was a product of political necessity for 13 states that had been separately administered as British colonies and that had already tried and failed to function as a loose confederation between 1776 and 1787. Unifying into a single nation would have been practical for the early United States. At the Philadelphia constitutional convention, big-state representatives, including Madison, favored a heavily national model of government to replace the failing decentralized system created by the Articles of Confederation.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: Former president Donald Trump’s lawyers defended him during his second impeachment trial in part by arguing that his January 6 speech was protected by the First Amendment. That defense was legally irrelevant to the high crimes and misdemeanors charge, and wasn’t settled by his acquittal. But Trump’s free-speech defense may now get its day in court. Representative Bennie Thompson, a  Democrat from Mississippi, has filed a civil lawsuit against Trump, Rudy Giuliani, the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys for unlawfully conspiring to interfere with Congress in the Capitol attack in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. And while the First Amendment doesn’t apply to impeachable offenses, it does apply in cases of civil liability. Trump’s best argument to get the case dismissed would be that he can’t held liable for conspiring with those who attacked the Capitol if all he did was express his First Amendment-protected political views. To decide that, a federal court would have to determine whether Trump’s speech was protected under the standard set by Brandenburg v. Ohio, the controlling precedent in incitement cases. The statute that forms the basis of Thompson’s lawsuit establishes liability when two or more persons conspire “by force, intimidation, or threat” to prevent any officer of the U.S. from the “lawful discharge of the duties of his office.” On its face, the law covers the January 6 attacks. There is no doubt that the rioters forcefully interfered with Congress’s discharge of its duties, and that Thompson was one of the people who was affected.

A podcast by Noah Feldman: Why are presidential impeachments happening more often? Are impeachments futile if they don't end in a conviction? What did Hamilton and Madison overlook about the impeachment and the transition of power? To discuss these questions, political journalist and CEO of Pushkin Industries Jacob Weisberg joins the conversation. Jacob and Noah were two of the early voices on impeachment, starting in 2017 when they co-authored an article laying out Trump’s early possible impeachable offenses for The New York Review of Books. Noah would later testify at President Trump’s first impeachment trial. Today, Jacob and Noah bookend the conversation on impeachment.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: Not content with a gerrymandered state legislatures and gerrymandered congressional districts, Pennsylvania Republicans are now moving to gerrymander judicial elections in the state — not only for local trial judges, but up to and including the state supreme court. It’s a terrible prospect, especially in the light of the state’s legal fight over the 2020 presidential election. And it points to a deeper problem, one that plagues many state judiciaries: Electing judges is a terrible idea. Born in the nineteenth century as a reform mechanism, the practice of electing judges has outlived its usefulness. In our current era of dangerous Trumpian populism, it is clearer than ever that we want judges to be sober, reasonable, and immune from the political pressures of the moment. Judicial elections come in three flavors: partisan elections, which 18 states use; non-partisan elections, found in 21 states; and retention elections after appointment, used in 21 states, several overlapping with the other two models. Only seven states have no judicial elections of any kind. At the most basic level, the idea of electing judges — which almost no other country on earth does — is based on the goal of making judges responsible to the public. The leading history of judicial elections, by Professor Jed Shugerman, tells the complicated story of how we got here. Some reformers worried that judges would be chosen as patronage appointments and therefore beholden to the governors who appointed them. Others feared judges unaccountable to the public would do the bidding of wealthy elites, a phenomenon known as judicial capture.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: Federal district court judge Jesse Furman has issued his ruling in the Citigroup-Revlon lawsuit involving a $900 million mistake. Due to human error, Citigroup employees made debt payments to Revlon’s creditors that Revlon didn’t intend for them to make. Remarkably, Furman ruled in favor of the creditors, who won’t have to give back the money it received in error. Citigroup and Revlon will now have to eat the costs of the bank’s mistake. The outcome is fascinating as an instance of strict judicial rule following. As Furman framed his opinion, the legal rule was clear: Under New York law, a creditor can keep a mistaken payment as long as he has “no knowledge” that it was sent in error. The case then came down to a question of fact: whether the creditors knew they were getting paid by mistake at the moment they got the payment. After hearing witness testimony, Furman concluded they did not. From there, it followed that they could keep the money. Seen from the perspective of common sense, the result is (I think) absurd. But the fault lies not in the judge’s application of the binding legal rule. It lies in the rule itself, at least as applied to sophisticated financial institutions. It makes almost no sense to focus on the magic moment of receipt of funds in deciding whether the courts should be able to rectify a mistake. The New York State courts, who adopted the rule, should re-think it.

On a morning in May, 2019, forty-three lawyers, academics, and media experts gathered in the windowless basement of the NoMad New York hotel for a private meeting...Since its founding, in 2004, Facebook had modelled itself as a haven of free expression on the Internet. But in the past few years, as conspiracy theories, hate speech, and disinformation have spread on the platform, critics have come to worry that the company poses a danger to democracy. Facebook promised to change that with the Oversight Board...The idea for the Oversight Board came from Noah Feldman, a fifty-year-old professor at Harvard Law School, who has written a biography of James Madison and helped draft the interim Iraqi constitution. In 2018, Feldman was staying with his college friend Sheryl Sandberg, the chief operating officer of Facebook, at her home in Menlo Park, California. One day, Feldman was riding a bike in the neighboring hills when, he said, “it suddenly hit me: Facebook needs a Supreme Court.” ... Currently, users can appeal cases in which Facebook has removed a post, called “take-downs,” but not those in which it has left one up, or “keep-ups.” The problem is that many of Facebook’s most pressing issues—conspiracy theories, disinformation, hate speech—involve keep-ups...“This is a big change from what you promised,” Evelyn Douek, a Harvard graduate student who consulted with the team, fumed, during one meeting. “This is the opposite of what was promised.” Users also currently can’t appeal cases on such issues as political advertising, the company’s algorithms, or the deplatforming of users or group pages. The board can take cases on these matters, including keep-ups, only if they are referred by Facebook, a system that, Douek told me, “stacks the deck” in Facebook’s favor.

Constitutional law scholar and Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman says Republicans are clinging to the constitutionality argument to avoid convicting Trump.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: The opening of former President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial highlighted three realities: The breach of the Capitol on Jan. 6 was a horrific episode that both mainstream political parties reject. Trump’s lawyers are woefully unprepared. And enough Republican senators will claim the trial is unconstitutional to assure that Trump won’t be convicted. So, what’s the point of the rest of the trial? The trial still matters because the theater of impeachment has a deadly serious purpose. In fact, Trump’s lawyers have already begun to fulfill one of its central functions: They are admitting, in a way that Trump himself has not, that the Jan. 6 attempt to disrupt the democratic process was a serious threat to democracy itself. Impeachment is designed to color in the red lines on the map of constitutional democracy. The lines have a purpose and a message: Stay inside them, and you may be voted out of office or otherwise held accountable by the voters. Cross them, and the system is supposed to stand up and take extraordinary steps to punish you. If it doesn’t, the system itself is profoundly weakened. Seen for what it is, the impeachment is an object lesson in delineating the fundamental, unbreakable rules of democracy. It offers civic education in the deepest sense to the entire country, and indeed the world.

A podcast by Noah Feldman: Monika Bickert, Vice President of Content Policy at Facebook, takes us inside the decision to indefinitely suspend former President Donald Trump’s account. Host Noah Feldman details what this move means for free expression in the United States and what it tells us about Trump’s second impeachment trial.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: The extended trial brief filed by Donald Trump’s lawyers advances three defenses: that Trump did not incite the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol; that the Senate can’t try a president who is no longer in office; and that the First Amendment protects Trump from being impeached for words that, they say, don’t meet the requirements for criminal incitement conviction laid down by the Supreme Court. The factual defense is highly unconvincing, as anyone who watched Trump’s speech on Jan. 6 and saw the attack can attest. The argument that the Senate lacks jurisdiction over a president who is out of office is disproven by history and Senate precedent. The free speech argument is also wrong in a basic sense: The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law abridging freedom of speech. But this doesn’t apply in impeachments any more than the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial would apply to the Senate impeachment trial. Yet the First Amendment defense requires deeper engagement than the other two, if only because it is less absurd. If it did apply to impeachments, the Supreme Court’s incitement jurisprudence contained in the famous 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohioprobably would have protected Trump’s speech.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: The impeachment defense brief of former president Donald Trump mostly consists of three elements, each of which I’ve addressed (and rejected) in previous columns: the purported unconstitutionality of trying the president once he is out of office; his supposed First Amendment rights; and his denial that he incited the attack on the Capitol. But there is something new in the brief: the astonishing assertion that if the Senate tries Trump, it will have violated the constitutional rule against bills of attainder. What’s a bill of attainder? Funny you should ask! A bill of attainder, prohibited explicitly by the Constitution in Article 1, section 9, is a law adopted by the legislature that singles out a particular individual or class of people for punishment without trial. The category has been analyzed and defined by the Supreme Court over the years, starting in the aftermath of the Civil War and most recently in a 1977 case involving Richard Nixon’s papers. It’s got nothing to do with the situation faced by Trump in his Senate trial. To start with, a bill of attainder is, as its name suggests, a bill — the kind of legislative act that only has effect when it is adopted by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the president. Impeachment and removal, by contrast, can be accomplished by Congress alone. So it’s legally wrong for Trump’s lawyers to say that conviction by the Senate counts as a bill of attainder. The Senate isn’t voting on any such bill; it’s trying Trump. And President Joe Biden has no role whatsoever in the process.

A podcast by Noah Feldman: Alexis Goldstein, a former Wall Street trader and senior policy analyst at Americans for Financial Reform, discusses why GameStop’s wild ride is not actually a David vs. Goliath story. She discusses the underlying conditions revealed by the GameStop saga, and imagines alternative ways to regulate the markets.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: Legislatures across the U.S. are considering more than 100bills aimed at restricting voter access, according to a report by the Brennan Center for Justice. The bills represent a direct, partisan reaction to the Democrats’ success in the 2020 election, when high turnout and mail-in voting powered blue victories in closely divided states like Georgia, Arizona and Pennsylvania. How likely are these bills to pass, and how likely are the ones that become law to survive legal challenges? Unfortunately, I don’t have good news for liberals on either of these questions. Where partisan gerrymandering favors Republicans in state legislatures, there is little to stop these bills from passing, or voters from punishing legislators for enacting them. In states where Republican legislators have used sophisticated computer technology to draw districts that systematically favor Republicans, Republicans can expect to keep control of many state legislatures even where the state’s overall voting is trending Democratic. Democrats’ only failsafe is veto by state governors, who are elected statewide. But in closely divided states, governors are as likely to be Republican as Democratic. In Arizona and Georgia, both the legislature and governor are Republican.

President Biden has vowed to reverse many of the immigration policies put in place by his predecessor. It’s a process that could take months or even years, but he’s starting with a number of executive orders expected today. Plus, is it constitutional to impeach a former president? And, the ominous sign when a country cuts its people off from the Internet. Guests: Axios' Stef Kight and Dave Lawler, and Noah Feldman, Harvard Law professor and host of Deep Background.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: It didn’t take long for the Texas attorney general to sue President Joe Biden’s administration over its immigration policy – nor for a federal judge to issue a nationwide injunction freezing Biden’s 100-day pause on certain deportations. If this movie sounds familiar, it should. Starting at the beginning of President Donald Trump’s administration, federal courts repeatedly struck down Trump’s executive orders, including a large number related to immigration, often using the tool of nationwide injunctions. The big question that emerges from the Texas ruling is this: Will the new, more skeptical legal standards that courts developed over the last four years to combat Trump’s lawlessness now be used by the courts to constrain Biden? Liberals (including me) spent a good part of the Trump era celebrating the judicial system as a bulwark against executive action that was expansive, aggressive — and lawless. Now we may have to confront the shadow side of judicial review of executive action: judicial overreach by conservative judges, many put in place by Trump, who have the ability to block progressive policies using some of the same tools. The order in question was issued by the Biden administration on its first day in office from the desk of the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The order specified a 100-day moratorium on most removals of non-citizens who were in the U.S. as of Nov. 1, 2020. It contained exceptions for noncitizens suspected of terrorism or espionage. And it also allowed for the removal of anyone whom the director of ICE, in consultation with the agency’s chief lawyer, individually determined to be required by law to be removed.

A podcast by Noah Feldman: Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch shares his concerns about the emerging COVID variants from the UK, South Africa, and Brazil. He also discusses how these new variants could impact vaccine rollout worldwide, and his cautious predictions for when we might return to something resembling normal.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: Dominion Voting Systems is suing Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s former lawyer, for libel, citing Giuliani’s false claims that the company was part of a conspiracy to steal the presidential election. The case isn’t a slam dunk, mostly because of First Amendment protections that make it hard to prove libel where public figures are concerned. But the suit is strong enough that Giuliani should hire a good lawyer — which is to say, a better one than Rudy Giuliani. The strongest claims in Dominion’s 107-page libel complaint arise from comments Giuliani repeated on Twitter, on Lou Dobbs Tonight, and on his own radio show and podcast. In those comments, Giuliani said that Dominion was owned by another company called Smartmatic (in fact, they are unrelated competitors) and that Smartmatic was founded by Venezuelans close to former dictator Hugo Chavez in order to steal elections. On the podcast, Giuliani went a bit further, saying that Dominion had stolen the election “technologically.” There’s no question that the statements were false and that they were defamatory to Dominion. When the person being libeled is a private citizen, that’s enough to prove libel. And if Dominion were a private citizen, it would almost certainly win its suit.

They meet mostly on Zoom, but I prefer to picture the members of this court, or council, or whatever it is, wearing reflective suits and hovering via hologram around a glowing table. The members include two people who were reportedly on presidential shortlists for the U.S. Supreme Court, along with a Yemeni Nobel Peace Prize laureate, a British Pulitzer winner, Colombia’s leading human rights lawyer and a former prime minister of Denmark. The 20 of them come, in all, from 18 countries on six continents, and speak 27 languages among them. This is the Oversight Board, a hitherto obscure body that will, over the next 87 days, rule on one of the most important questions in the world: Should Donald J. Trump be permitted to return to Facebook and reconnect with his millions of followers? ... The board will seriously examine the Trump question, guided by Facebook’s own rules as well as international human rights law. If Facebook accepts its rulings, as it has pledged to do, as well as the board’s broader guidance, the company will endow this obscure panel with a new kind of legitimacy. “Either it’s nothing, or it’s the New World Order,” said a lecturer at Harvard Law School who studies content moderation, Evelyn Douek, who pushed Facebook to send the Trump case to the Oversight Board...Noah Feldman, the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, who first brought the notion of a Facebook Supreme Court to the company, said he thought conservatives dismayed by the recent crackdown might be surprised to find an ally in this new international institution. “They may come to realize that the Oversight Board is more responsive to freedom of expression concerns than any platform can be, given real world politics,” he said.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: The storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6 was a real lowlight for Congress. At least during the sacking of Washington in the war of 1812, the White House burned alongside the Capitol. But on January 6, 2021 the head of the executive branch urged his followers to interfere with the operation of the legislative branch. The entire sequence of events is a reminder that congressional power has been receding relative to the executive branch for almost a century. Now is the time for Congress to stand up for its rights as a coequal branch of government. It’s not only that the January 6 attack has drawn public attention to the importance of the legislature. It’s that President Joe Biden is the first career legislator to occupy the White House in nearly 50 years. Biden’s experience and instincts will guide him into pursuing major legislation, not just governing by executive order. If Congress can find bipartisan issues on which to pass laws, and if a significant bloc of congressional Republicans chooses not to be absolutely obstructionist, we might begin the process of restoring some of the governmental balance envisioned by the Constitution. Congress’s downward slide should matter to Democrats and Republicans alike.

A podcast by Noah Feldman: Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley shares his predictions and warnings for writing historical narratives about the end of the Trump presidency. He also discusses Trump’s decision to not attend the inauguration and how we should apply the 25th Amendment in the 21st century. This is the first installment in a new Deep Background series focusing on power in different fields and forms.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: Can the Senate try President Donald Trump after he leaves office? The answer to that question lies with, you guessed it, the Senate. In reaching a decision, the Senators may choose to be guided by a precedent: that of William W. Belknap, Ulysses S. Grant’s Secretary of War. Belknap resigned mere hours before the House of Representatives impeached him. The Senate tried him anyway — although a substantial number of senators insisted throughout that they had no authority over a government official who had already resigned. As a consequence the Senate did not convict Belknap by the constitutional two thirds requirement. Belknap’s story is a wild one. There are few scholarly articles about him, although there is a highly instructive, detailed master’s thesis on which I’ve relied. Belknap was born in Newburgh, New York, along the Hudson River. He graduated from Princeton and studied law at Georgetown. As the proverbial young man he went West to Iowa, enlisting in the 15th Iowa Volunteer Regiment not long after the Civil War broke out. He served under General William Tecumseh Sherman during his March to the Sea and showed notable bravery in battle, most famously by capturing a Confederate colonel at the Battle of Atlanta. The episode involved him, then a Colonel himself, leaping over some breastworks into enemy fire. The public lauded him as a hero.