Noah Feldman

An article by Noah Feldman: Over the weekend, President Donald Trump issued several new executive orders aimed at extending the Covid-19 economic stimulus that has offered some financial relief to millions of Americans. But instead of bringing clarity, the orders have generated a raft of confusion. Are they even constitutional? Will they go into effect? For your convenience, here’s a simple rule of thumb for what the president can and cannot do on his own, without Congress: No to new money; yes to relaxed collection of money you owe the government. Under the Constitution, only Congress can initiate new spending. The president may only spend money that has already been appropriated. He’s supposed to spend it on the purpose for which Congress appropriated it in the first place; but in real life, he has pretty wide discretion to say whether a given expenditure fits under a given appropriation. This is the reason Trump’s proposed supplemental unemployment benefit of $400 may not last long, if it goes into effect at all. Congress hasn’t allocated any new money (yet) for a new benefit. So Trump can only spend money already appropriated for other, related purposes in FEMA emergency funds. He can’t overspend the existing appropriation. (He may be gambling that if he uses up money that’s supposed to be spent on hurricanes and other natural disasters, Congress will hurry up and appropriate more money.) Someone will probably file a suit saying that Trump can’t use the FEMA emergency funds for the supplemental benefit. But in practice, a court would likely defer to Trump’s executive discretion on what counts as a reasonable use of emergency funds. There is one quirk to be noted: $100 of the $400 is supposed to come from states, and Trump’s order seems to say you can only get the federal $300 if you first qualify for the state’s $100. Trump can’t control what states do. And it is uncertain whether the president can condition receipt of the $300 benefit on states first providing $100.

After several failed efforts to use the ADA, HIPAA and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to fight mask mandates, those opposed to masks are adding a new tool to their arsenal: the Civil Rights Act of 1964...A website called The Healthy American is using the same argument to sell religious mask exemption cards. “Religious Exemption: The bearer of this card is LEGALLY EXEMPT from wearing any face coverings or being subjected to temperature taking, viral testing or vaccination, as protected by U.S. Federal Law, Title II of the Civil Rights Act, U.S. Code 42 ss 2000 (a),” reads the card, which @missioninactionpodcast shared on Instagram July 25. Through a quick visit to the site, individuals can purchase an identical card for a $12 donation. The exemption notice claims to be valid through Dec. 31, 2021, and is signed by pastoral representative David Hall...Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman, who specializes in constitutional studies, with an emphasis on law and religion, said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not grant individuals religious mask exemptions. “The government can’t discriminate against you on the basis of your religion, but it doesn’t appear to be discriminating against you here by telling you to wear a mask,” Feldman told USA TODAY. “Contrary to what this card is saying, federal law cannot get you an exemption from a neutral, generally applicable state law."

An article by Noah Feldman: The attorney general of New York has sued to seek the dissolution of the National Rifle Association, alleging fraud and abuse in the way the NRA’s chief executive and other officials ran the operation. Given that the NRA has played such a powerfully destructive role in U.S. politics, fighting against gun regulations that demonstrably save lives, it’s tempting to react with applause. Yet even liberals who oppose the NRA’s mission should take a deep breath and ask: Do we really want an elected attorney general to try to destroy a prominent nongovernmental organization that is arrayed on the other side of the political spectrum from her? What if this were Alabama and the organization were the NAACP? Or Tennessee and the ACLU? If an organization has really fallen into a condition of fundamental corruption, a state attorney general can demand that it get new leaders, or replace its board of directors and its management in their entirety. Maybe New York Attorney General Letitia James is prepared to settle the case against the NRA with that sort of an organizational overhaul. But asking the court not to order the reform of the organization, but to dismantle and dissolve it altogether, creates the impression that the attorney general is trying to use the legal system to intervene in the very political dispute in which the NRA is such an important player: the fight over Second Amendment rights and gun control. It should go without saying that it would be entirely improper for a state official — or a federal official, for that matter — to use the awesome enforcement power of the government to target advocacy organizations with whose policies the official strongly disagrees. That is the kind of politicization of the legal system that President Donald Trump has tried to promote during his four years in office.

A podcast by Noah Feldman: Osita Nwanevu, a staff writer at The New Republic, explains why he’s not worried about “cancel culture.”

An article by Noah Feldman: In nearly four years in office, President Donald Trump has challenged the independence of the judicial branch more than any other president. He’s accused judges of being “Obama judges” or “Mexican judges.” When he’s been investigated for corruption or obstruction of justice, he’s routinely portrayed himself as above the law. He’s directed his administration to issue a spate of unlawful executive orders. With the November election looming, it’s a good time to ask: Can the legitimacy of the federal judiciary survive another four years of this president? There are reasons to hope that it could. Although Trump has named numerous district court and appellate judges and two Supreme Court justices, the courts have nevertheless mostly held the line against his efforts to subvert the rule of law. Indeed, in the recent Supreme Court term, the justices did better than that. Majorities blocked Trump from rescinding DACA and held that the New York district attorney could subpoena his business records. The verdict on the courts’ ability to maintain independence over the last four years is mainly positive. Yet there are also reasons to worry. If Trump is given another four years and a Republican Senate, he will get to name a lot more lower court judges. And barring a medical miracle, he would very likely get to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is 87 and suffering from a recurrence of cancer. He might even get a chance to nominate a successor to Justice Stephen Breyer, now 81.

An article by Noah Feldman: For most of the last 20 years, a rule has applied to the Supreme Court: All Washington, D.C. institutions leak, but the court doesn’t. Now, in a four-part series, CNN Supreme Court reporter Joan Biskupic has revealed details of the court’s inner workings, including deliberations the justices conducted behind closed doors with no one else present. The reports follow similar, less extensive reports Biskupic filed last year. They also follow some conservative opinion pieces fretting that Justice Elena Kagan might have swayed conservative justices to her side in the LGBTQ and contraception cases — essays that have sometimes looked as though they’ve been informed by inside information. Something appears to be changing in the culture of the court. In the light of the court’s tight-lipped history, it’s worth asking: What are the consequences of these leaks? And would it be better for the court if they stopped? Discretion at the court isn’t an inexorable reality. Rather, it’s a pattern that has come and gone over the years. In the 1850s, the New York Tribune published the results of one case before it was handed down, then revealed the court deliberations in the notorious Dred Scott decision, one of the most consequential (and racist, and disastrous) opinions ever issued by the court. In the late 1930s and ‘40s, a period I wrote about in my book “Scorpions,” several justices leaked to the press, poisoning the personal dynamics between them and leading to decades of back-stabbing and hatred. It was part of how the justices of that era came to be described as “nine scorpions in a bottle.”

Firefighters in Hingham, Mass., are continuing to display a version of the American flag — black and white with a blue stripe — on their fire trucks. The firefighters say it's there to show support for the police, but their bosses say it's an inappropriate political statement and it has to come down. All Things Considered host Arun Rath spoke with Noah Feldman, a professor of law at Harvard Law School, on Wednesday about the controversy.

A podcast by Noah Feldman: For the next couple of weeks on Deep Background, we’re bringing you a special series exploring questions of liberty, equality, and freedom of speech, To kick off our series, Suzanne Nossel, the CEO of Pen America and author of the book Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All, explains why she thinks that the drive towards equality is not at odds with protections for free speech. Plus, in his Playback column, Noah discusses Trump’s decision to send federal officers to Portland, Oregon.

An article by Noah Feldman: The news that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is being treated for a recurrence of cancer is striking terror in the hearts of liberals. As long as she is physically able, the resolute, gutsy Ginsburg will stay on the Supreme Court until there is a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in the Senate. But what if, in the worst-case scenario, Ginsburg’s health forces her out before President Donald Trump’s term in office is over? Worried liberals have been asking me if there’s anything Senate Democrats can do to prevent Trump from getting a third Supreme Court pick in his four years in office. I can’t give them a very comforting answer. If Ginsburg should leave while Trump is still president, it seems overwhelmingly likely that Trump would nominate a replacement more or less immediately — and that the replacement would be a staunch conservative. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would likely act quickly to get that person confirmed. Once the president nominates a justice, it falls to the Senate to confirm the nominee according to its own discretionary timetable. As we all know, McConnell exercised that discretion on behalf of his caucus by refusing to hold hearings for a vote when President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s vacancy after his sudden death. As a result, Trump got to fill that seat. Now, one would expect McConnell to go to the opposite extreme and push for a rapid confirmation of Trump’s nominee. We are accustomed, in our current era, to somewhat lengthy confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justices. But these are in no way required by the Constitution, which merely says the Senate has the power to advise and consent on Supreme Court nominees.

A podcast by Noah Feldman: Roxane Gay, the best-selling author of Bad Feminist and Hunger and the co-host of the podcast Hear to Slay, discusses her new short story "String Theory."

An article by Noah Feldman: If there really is a law enforcement problem in American cities, why hasn’t President Donald Trump sent the FBI to fight crime in Portland, Oregon? Or the DEA to fight violence connected to drug trafficking in Chicago? Why is he sending in special, paramilitary units from the Department of Homeland Security whose job is to enforce immigration laws? A closer look shows why Trump’s use of these officers is so troubling. Federal law enforcement agencies like the FBI and DEA have well defined responsibilities and are institutionally committed to carrying them out, not exceeding them. FBI agents are trained to understand that their job is to investigate federal crimes. DEA agents are trained to know that their job is to investigate federal drug crimes. Agents in both institutions are accustomed to working closely with federal prosecutors. The DHS units that Trump is deploying are something else again. According to the DHS, it has deployed officers from several paramilitary units in Portland, including the Border Patrol Tactical Unit, Border Patrol Search, Trauma and Rescue and Special Response teams. These units, from the DHS departments of Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, have nothing to do with policing ordinary street crimes. Yet that is what they are doing in Portland. The reason these units are part of CBP and ICE is that their job is to target non-citizens. There’s no reason to think they have the relevant training, experience, institutional knowledge or expertise to deal with citizens, protests or street crime. Nor is there any reason to think that these units are accustomed to working closely with federal prosecutors who could be expected (in theory at least) to make sure that their activities complied with relevant federal law.

An article by Noah Feldman: Having sent officers from the Department of Homeland Security to Portland, Oregon, President Donald Trump is now saying that he will send more federal agents to other U.S. cities to fight crime. His actions, already heavily criticized by elected officials in Oregon, raise serious constitutional questions. How and when may the president deploy armed federal officers across the country? What are the limits? And, what if anything, can states or citizens do about it? The president, as head of the executive branch, has the constitutional duty and authority to “take care” that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. This includes sending federal officers to protect federal property and enforce federal law. Good examples aren’t hard to find. When President Barack Obama’s administration sent federal officials to confront Cliven Bundy in 2014, that was perfectly lawful and constitutional. When a citizen claims that the federal government does not own federal land, it can be appropriate for the government to demonstrate that it in fact does own that land. Similarly, although of much greater moral significance, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to enforce federal law and the Constitution by integrating the Little Rock schools in 1957. This was an extraordinary act, but entirely legitimate in light of the state of Arkansas’s open resistance to the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court. Most famously, President Abraham Lincoln sent federal troops to suppress the secession of the Confederate states based on the argument that he must enforce federal law and protect federal property, including Fort Sumter. Yet these executive rights and responsibilities are extremely different from what Trump is presently doing.

A podcast by Noah Feldman: Debo Adegbile, who twice defended the Voting Rights Act before the Supreme Court, discusses John Lewis’ legacy.

An article by Noah Feldman: The blockbuster Supreme Court term that just ended was a (nearly) unmitigated disaster for movement conservatives. Chief Justice John Roberts declined to overturn precedent on abortion rights. Conservative activist Justice Neil Gorsuch showed he would join the court’s liberals when the statutory text tells him to. The natural question then is, what’s next? What are the implications for the future of the court? The short answer is that the court’s future direction is in flux like no other time in recent memory. And what happens next will be determined by the 2020 election and the justices’ health. The first crucial point here is that, had Roberts and Gorsuch not crossed the court’s ideological lines in the most high-profile cases of the term, we would be looking at an extremely conservative court for the foreseeable future, regardless of the outcome of the November vote. The court has five conservative justices who — until this term — seemed capable of acting as an unassailable voting bloc for the indefinite future. (The oldest, Justice Clarence Thomas, is only 72.) This bloc was formed after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate blocked a confirmation vote on Judge Merrick Garland during the Obama administration, allowing a newly elected President Donald Trump to appoint Gorsuch. The retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a swing voter who repeatedly delivered liberal-friendly results on issues like gay rights, abortion, and Guantánamo, then allowed Trump to appoint Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is (so far) a much more reliable conservative. This conservative majority was the first on the court in nearly a century, and conservative activists anticipated that it would overturn Roe v. Wade and hold the line on cultural issues like transgender rights.

A podcast by Noah Feldman: Jennifer Bradley, the Founding Director of the Center for Urban Innovation at the Aspen Institute, discusses how the coronavirus has changed cities, in some ways for the better. Plus, in his Playback column, Noah gives his take on the Supreme Court's decision on Trump's tax records.

An article by Noah Feldman: The U.S. Supreme Court term that ended last week was a blockbuster, with landmark decisions on abortion, LGBTQ rights, presidential power, immigration, religious liberty and American Indian law. No term in almost two decades comes close to having issued so many crucial decisions —with long-term consequences for millions of Americans. The drama of the term was enhanced by what you might think of as coming-out events for two justices: chosen transformations that change the way each presents to the world. Chief Justice John Roberts revealed himself to be (or to have become) a genuine, judicial restraint Burkean conservative who is prepared to uphold liberal precedents and to keep the Trump administration subordinate to the rule of law. He surprised liberals and horrified movement conservatives who had hoped he would lead or at least participate in sweeping away liberal precedents they hate. And Justice Neil Gorsuch revealed himself as so highly principled in his commitment to textualist statutory interpretation that he will carry its logic to conclusions that liberals love and conservatives hate. His bid to become the intellectual leader of the conservative wing of the court is going to have a different character than court watchers like me had anticipated. Together, these coming-out events should remind us that the justices aren’t robots, driven by partisan or ideological agendas. They are complex human beings, whose decisions are shaped by jurisprudence, values, beliefs, ideas, emotions and strategies. That’s why they have the capacity to surprise us. Roberts is now the most influential chief justice since the great John Marshall, who held the job from 1801 to 1835.

An article by Noah Feldman: In a fitting coda to the blockbuster Supreme Court term that ended yesterday, the court decided a major American Indian law case, one that matters for our historical moment of considering systemic racism and the question of reparations. In a 5-4 decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch and the court’s four liberals held that much of the eastern part of the state of Oklahoma remains, legally speaking, a Creek reservation, pursuant to treaties made between the United States and the Creek Nation in the 19th century. In practice, this means primarily that American Indians charged with crimes committed in this area will have to be prosecuted in federal or tribal courts, rather than Oklahoma courts. Some existing criminal convictions may have to be overturned, and some prisoners may be able to get off death row. The symbolic significance of the decision, however, goes much further. In his opinion, Gorsuch made a point of emphasizing that government of the United States must keep the promises it has made — and too often broken — to indigenous tribes throughout its history. His opinion began with the sentence, “at the end of the Trail of Tears was a promise,” the promise of reservation land for the Creek Nation. Although it is “clear that Congress has since broken more than a few of his promises to the tribe,” he wrote, nonetheless the promise of the reservation remained in place. Thus, Gorsuch concluded, “We hold the government to its word.” If this attitude of acknowledging broken promises and fulfilling them were to be adopted by the courts, not to mention by the American public, it would go a long way toward repairing the nearly unimaginable wrongs done to the first peoples of the North American continent over the centuries.

In a pair of historic rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected President Trump's claim of absolute immunity under the law. The vote was 7 to 2 in two decisions Thursday involving grand jury and congressional subpoenas for Trump's pre-presidential financial records. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court's two decisions, declaring, "In our system, the public has a right to every man's evidence," and "since the founding of the Republic, every man has included the President of the United States." Roberts was joined in the two cases by the court's four liberals, plus the two justices appointed by President Trump, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. In the grand jury case, however, the two agreed only on the bottom line; they wrote separately to say they would have made it more difficult for the grand jury to subpoena the president's financial records...Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman had a somewhat different take, noting that the Court, for the first time had ruled in a case that pits presidential and congressional powers against each other. "In that sense, the court has made itself more powerful relative to Congress," Feldman said. "On the other hand, before, when congress pressed, and the president absolutely refused to participate, there was nowhere to get a third party to adjudicate. Now there is."

An article by Noah Feldman: The Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions today on President Donald Trump’s financial records. The first, Trump v. Vance, related only to a New York state criminal subpoena; the second, Trump v. Mazars, related to congressional subpoenas of Trump's tax returns. In Vance, the court ruled that Trump's financial records may be subpoenaed by the New York district attorney’s office as part of a criminal investigation. It’s a devastating blow for the president. But Mazars was a tactical win for Trump, insofar as it likely means the courts cannot reach a final ruling on the issue in time for the November 2020 election. The Mazars decision is the more nuanced ruling, and we’ll get to that. But let’s start with the Vance case, which elicited a rather extraordinary opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts. Trump v. Vance: Roberts, joined by the court’s four liberals, wrote the majority opinion, which relied on precedent to conclude that the president has no special protection against turning over his papers to a state prosecutor. This is yet another decision this term that consolidates Roberts as the only really important power on the court — and as a justice who has decided to be sure that rule of law extends to Donald Trump. The ruling started with the founding father we love to hate, Aaron Burr. Yes, the same man who was the nemesis of Alexander Hamilton, killed him in a duel, and went on to organize a conspiracy to create a new country carved out of the western part of the United States.

An article by Noah Feldman: The Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns, have been fighting the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act since 2013. Today the Supreme Court gave them a victory — but not the final victory they sought, namely that they’re automatically entitled to an exemption from the ACA under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Nonetheless, this ruling — along with other key decisions this term — demonstrates that the conservative majority of the court has definitively entered the era of religious exemptions. If the idea of the Little Sisters before the Supreme Court rings a bell, congratulations on the acuity of your memory. After President Barack Obama signed the ACA, his Department of Health and Human Services gave an exemption to the contraceptive mandate to certain religious organizations like the Little Sisters, while still ensuring contraceptive care would reach their employees. The way the exemptions worked was essentially that an organization seeking not to pay for its employees’ contraceptive care would submit a certificate to HHS explaining that it was a nonprofit religious organization with conscientious objection to contraception. The religious entity would then provide a copy of the certificate to its health insurer — which would then itself pay for the contraceptive care, not charging the religious employer. The Little Sisters objected that even this process violated their religious liberty under RFRA. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016 robbed them of what would almost certainly have been a win. Instead, in May of 2016, the justices (who presumably were deadlocked 4-4) tried ham-fistedly to order the Obama administration and the Little Sisters to work out a solution. Neither side was prepared to compromise in a way that would satisfy the other.