Noah Feldman

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: U.S.-born Hoda Muthana should be in an American prison for joining Islamic State, the caliphate that terrorized, murdered and raped innocent civilians. Instead, she and her 2-year-old son are stuck in a refugee camp in Syria — because the U.S. government, relying on a technicality, has stripped her of her passport and told her that she and her son are not citizens. A federal judge has just held that government had the authority to do so. It’s hard to feel sympathy for Muthana. But the judge’s decisions, and the government’s before that, set a terrible precedent for others whom the government might try to strip of their citizenship in the future. A person who reasonably believes she was born a citizen, and has been issued a passport on that understanding by the government, should be treated as a citizen unless she has lied to get that passport in the first place.

An article by Noah Feldman: It is plainly immoral to deport Dreamers, people raised in the U.S. as undocumented aliens. President Donald Trump seems to understand that — which is why, when he officially rescinded President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, he said he had no choice because the program was illegal. Now the Supreme Court is being asked to rule on whether Trump’s rescission was itself illegal. That puts the court into a bind. Logically, the court should uphold Trump’s power to shut down the program. If Obama as president had the power to create DACA, Trump should have the power to end it. Morally, however, the court shouldn’t take away Dreamers’ right to remain in the U.S. Direct conflict between law and morality is the stuff of great works of literature, not to mention a host of “Law and Order” episodes. But it is much rarer in real life than you might think.

An article by Noah Feldman:  It’s no surprise that Ambassador William Taylor is expected to be the first witness to testify when the House of Representatives opens public impeachment hearings against President Donald Trump next week. First, he’s an astoundingly credible witness — straight from central casting, as Trump himself likes to say about some of his appointees. As a matter of prosecutorial strategy, that makes him an ideal first witness for House Democrats to lay out their case for the first time to the public. Second, the content of Taylor’s deposition was extraordinarily damning. That’s because it nailed Trump’s abuse of power, the fundamental element of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” for which Democrats aim to impeach.

An article by Noah Feldman: Fighting to keep his tax returns secret, President Donald Trump will soon ask the U.S. Supreme Court to grant him “temporary absolute immunity” from any criminal investigation while he’s in office. The case sets up yet another test for the court’s new swing voter, Chief Justice John Roberts, who is devoted to the principle of judicial restraint. The federal appeals court that has already rejected Trump’s claim understood this perfectly. It issued an extremely cautious, narrow opinion targeted straight at Roberts. That opinion, a minor masterpiece of judicial craft, strongly increases the odds that Roberts will reject absolute presidential immunity. In light of that opinion, I cautiously predict that, if the Supreme Court takes the case, it will hold that Trump’s accountant can be subpoenaed by a New York state grand jury to turn over the president’s tax records.

An article by Noah Feldman:  A growing number of cities and states want to turn climate change lawsuits against oil companies into the next tobacco or opioid litigation. In principle, that seems like a truly terrible idea. Such lawsuits will likely do even less to remedy the effects of climate change than similar suits did for lung cancer or opioid addiction. Yet on closer analysis, the climate change lawsuits may be the worst solution to mitigating climate change — except for all the others. The analogy to Winston Churchill’s notorious defense of democracy isn’t an accident. In the American form of democracy, oil companies enjoy an almost unparalleled capacity to influence Congress and federal government regulators.

An article by Noah Feldman: A growing number of cities and states want to turn climate change lawsuits against oil companies into the next tobacco or opioid litigation. In principle, that seems like a truly terrible idea. Such lawsuits will likely do even less to remedy the effects of climate change than similar suits did for lung cancer or opioid addiction. Yet on closer analysis, the climate change lawsuits may be the worst solution to mitigating climate change — except for all the others. The analogy to Winston Churchill’s notorious defense of democracy isn’t an accident. In the American form of democracy, oil companies enjoy an almost unparalleled capacity to influence Congress and federal government regulators. Local governments aren’t quite so captured. Recently, New York state’s lawsuit against Exxon began its trial; Massachusetts filed its own suit; and the Supreme Court declined an admittedly unusual request to stay suits being brought in state courts in Maryland, Rhode Island and Colorado.

An article by Noah Feldman: According to the White House, senior advisers who work closely with the president have “absolute immunity” from congressional subpoena on matters related to their official duties. That’s what the Trump administration is telling former deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman — and almost certainly telling former national security adviser John Bolton. Kupperman, caught between a House subpoena and a presidential directive not to testify, went to the federal district court in Washington, D.C., on Friday to ask what he should do. To answer him, the court will likely have to rule on whether the claim of absolute immunity holds water or not.

An article by Noah Feldman: In an important development, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. has pointed the way to a possible resolution of the standoff between President Donald Trump and the House of Representatives over the legitimacy of the impeachment inquiry. The court’s ruling signals that at least part of the judiciary is prepared to help resolve the emerging constitutional crisis — by deciding in favor of Congress and against the president.

This week has seen some of the most damning testimony yet in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Meanwhile, some House Republicans took it upon themselves to storm into a secure briefing room to complain about the levels of transparency in the process. Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman joins Walter to explain why the impeachment fight tests the very limits of the U.S. constitution.

A constitutional scholar tells CNN’s Fareed Zakaria that American democracy is in real danger of failing if the House of Representatives fails to impeach President Donald Trump. In a clip aired on CNN Friday morning, Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman tells Zakaria that the mechanics of the Constitution make it clear that impeachment is the sole way an American president can be held accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors. In particular, Feldman says that he believes it is wildly implausible to argue that Trump was not seeking a thing of personal value from Ukraine when he asked its government to launch an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden. “It’s extremely clear that it is a quid pro quo,” he said. “It’s laughable to think that the president was not trying to gain personally by investigating Joe Biden.”

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: To understand where the impeachment inquiry has gone so far, and where it’s likely to go next, you need to keep in mind one key concept. Hint: it’s not quid pro quo. It’s momentum. To date, House Democrats have built on the original whistle-blower’s document by eliciting behind-closed-doors depositions from those officials in the State Department, Defense Department, and White House who are willing to defy Donald Trump’s order not to participate. By leaking the headlines of their testimony, the Democrats have been able to dominate the news cycle for weeks.

Max Nisen, Bloomberg Opinion Healthcare Columnist: "The Democrats Are Fighting for Health in 2020" Noah Feldman, Professor at Harvard Law school and a Bloomberg Opinion Columnist: "Forget Giuliani. Trump’s Abuse of Power Is Clear" Justin Fox, Bloomberg Opinion Columnist: "’Peak TV’ Might Also Mean Peak Jobs in TV and Movies" Jonathan Bernstein, Bloomberg Opinion Columnist: "Why Ocasio-Cortez’s Endorsement Matters" Sarah Green Carmicheal, Bloomberg Opinion Editor: "Men and Women Split on Gender Diversity"

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney admitted Thursday that President Donald Trump conditioned U.S. aid to Ukraine on a politically motivated investigation into the origins of the allegation that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee. Then he attempted to reverse himself. Regardless of whether the reversal succeeds, Mulvaney’s initial admission signals what looks to become a new direction for defending the president: Admit there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine, but claim the president has the constitutional authority to do such deals with foreign countries. This is a defense that Democrats in charge of the impeachment inquiry should confront head on — sooner rather than later. It’s not enough simply to state that Trump abused his power when he offered Ukraine aid or a White House visit in return for investigating what Trump wanted investigated. The Democrats are going to have to explain why pressuring a foreign power to investigate political rivals subverts the very nature of republican self-government.

An article by Noah Feldman:  Your boss, the president of the United States, directs you not to help Congress in the impeachment inquiry he considers illegitimate. Then you get a subpoena from the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee ordering you to appear and testify under oath — or face contempt charges if you don’t. Other than call a lawyer, what are you supposed to do next? For growing number of Trump administration officials, this isn’t a hypothetical situation. Since White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s Oct 8 letter refusing Trump administration participation in the House impeachment inquiry, five current or freshly resigned foreign policy officials have chosen to testify before the inquiry despite being told to keep quiet. Meanwhile, some officials under subpoena haven’t yet agreed to testify. And the White House has so far blocked the release of many, but not all, of the documents subpoenaed by the House. It’s possible to depict the subpoenaed officials who have agreed to appear as heroes, choosing service to the republic over personal loyalty to the president. That may even be true of some of them. But the legal reality of their dilemma makes things a little more complicated.

An article by Noah Feldman:  If you’re following the House of Representatives impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump, you may be wondering why you aren’t seeing video clips of testimony by crucial witnesses. The answer is: it’s all happening in secret, not so much to protect national security, but to manage the political process of the inquiry. There are some plausible reasons to justify the ongoing secrecy of depositions being made before the House Intelligence Committee. But the secrecy can’t go on indefinitely. As the contours of the case against Trump become known, it’s time for House Democrats to start moving towards public testimony and a more transparent inquiry.

An article by Noah Feldman:  The news that two associates of Rudy Giuliani have been charged with funneling illegal campaign contributions from Ukraine to the United States is inevitably intriguing to Democrats leading an impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. But it’s important to avoid going down a rabbit hole of Ukraine-Trump connections. That could distract the public from the core issue: That Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden in exchange for releasing military aid.

A war of words and a stalemate in Washington this week, after the White House declared that it will not cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. President Trump tweeted that the Democratic-led House inquiry was "a totally compromised kangaroo court." Democrats said the president is obstructing justice, and vowed to press on. So, what happens now? Guests: Noah Feldman, professor at Harvard Law School. He tweets @noahrfeldman. His piece in the New York Times is called "This Is a Constitutional Crisis. What Happens Next?" He tweets @noahrfeldman. Nancy Gertner, former Massachusetts federal judge, senior lecturer at Harvard Law School and WBUR legal analyst. She tweets @ngertner.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: For the first time since President Richard Nixon refused to turn over the White House tapes, the United States is facing a genuine constitutional crisis. To be sure, Donald Trump had already created a crisis in the presidency by abusing the power of his office to pressure foreign governments to investigate his political rival Joe Biden. But that act on its own didn’t count as a constitutional crisis, because the Constitution prescribes an answer to presidential abuse of office: impeachment. Now that President Trump has announced — via a letter signed by Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel — that he will not cooperate in any way with the impeachment inquiry begun in the House of Representatives, we no longer have just a crisis of the presidency. We also have a breakdown in the fundamental structure of government under the Constitution. That counts as a constitutional crisis.

An article by Noah Feldman: A federal district judge in New York has held that the Manhattan district attorney may subpoena Donald Trump’s tax records as part of a criminal investigation. Apart from the obvious political implications, there’s something constitutionally significant about the decision by Judge Victor Marrero, a Bill Clinton appointee. The judge took the opportunity to attack two memos written by the Department of Justice, both of which maintain that a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted. These memos form the basis for the department’s current policy of not indicting a sitting president in federal court.

An article by Noah Feldman: The Supreme Court is back in session today. And in this mad political season, it somehow seems fitting that one of the first cases it will consider is whether it is constitutional for a state to punish a person who cannot tell right from wrong because of mental illness. On the surface, the question seems like one with obvious liberal and conservative answers: liberals, it would appear, should think that the Constitution protects people with certain serious forms of mental disability, whereas conservatives should think that states may be as harsh as they like in defining crime. And indeed, it seems probable that the court will split roughly on ideological lines in the case, Kahler v. Kansas.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman;  It’s no surprise that a federal judge has held that Harvard University doesn’t discriminate against Asian Americans in its admissions. This case probably ends here: The Supreme Court would be ill-advised to take up this particular case. Yet there will likely be other cases like this one, and a conservative Supreme Court may well take one of those as an opportunity to rule against diversity-based admissions. Evidence of discrimination by Harvard (where I work) was, in the end, extremely weak. The parties introduced competing statistical models, and even the model preferred by the plaintiffs didn’t show much in the way of disparate admissions outcomes. The main troubling finding, that Asian-American applicants were scored slightly lower on a “personal qualities” metric, appears to be mostly explained by high school teacher recommendations, which might well reflect implicit bias – but not discrimination by Harvard.