Refugees from around the globe, and visa-holders from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia can once again travel to America–for the time being, at least. The window of relief came courtesy of James Robart, a federal district court judge in Seattle, Washington. On Friday, Robart granted a temporary restraining order on President Donald Trump’s recent executive order travel ban, which barred travelers from the seven aforementioned countries–refugees and visitors alike–for various amounts of time.

Trump responded to the injunction by taking the case to federal appeals court–and by tweeting:

The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2017

While tweeting obviously does not have constitutional authority to overturn the opinion of a federal judge, an appeals court does. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco did not re-instate the travel ban; instead it ordered the Trump Administration to file a brief defending the executive order by Monday at 3 p.m. In its emergency motion filed with the appeals court, which was denied, the administration wrote:

The injunction contravenes the constitutional separation of powers; harms the public by thwarting enforcement of an Executive Order issued by the nation’s elected representative responsible for immigration matters and foreign affairs; and second-guesses the President’s national security judgment about the quantum of risk posed by the admission of certain classes of aliens and the best means of minimizing that risk.

However the appeals court decides to rule on the motion, the losing side, either the Trump Administration or the states of Washington and Minnesota, which filed the initial lawsuit, will likely bring their case to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, Trump continues to lash out at the “so-called judge” Robart, Trump’s surrogates were dispatched to defend him, and Republican and Democratic politicians responded to the president’s apparent disrespect for the judicial branch.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Vice President Mike Pence said Trump has “every right to criticize the other two branches of government.” He added that Trump and millions of Americans “want to see judges that will uphold the law and recognize the authority the president of the United States has under the Constitution to manage who comes into this country.”

In its emergency motion, the administration cited the Immigration Act of 1952 (amended in 1965) as “the framework for deciding which aliens may enter and remain in the United States.” This law, the administration said, gives the executive branch the authority to determine who is welcome to come to America, for refuge or for a visit.

The 1965 law was passed to undo America’s past quotas on immigrants from certain countries, notably Arabs, Africans, and European Jews fleeing the Holocaust. The law broadly established the current procedure for resettling refugees and welcoming immigrants, and the Trump Administration is likely to point to it as proof of the president’s authority to make immigration-related decisions.

As Trump continues to decry the federal courts (“just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril,” he tweeted on Sunday), Democrats and some Republicans are defending judicial authority. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said its “best not to single out judges,” and Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), on ABC’s “This Week,” said: “We have people from three different branches of government who take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said Trump “is not a dictator,” and that the Founding Fathers “wanted a strong Congress for the very reason that most of these kinds of things should be done within the scope of lawmaking. This is done within the scope of executive power.” In the coming days, weeks and, most likely, months, federal courts, including the Supreme Court, will test the checks-and-balances system the founders established centuries ago.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Going on with Trump’s Travel Ban? appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. The bill, which passed with a vote largely along party lines by 237-187, would require certain executive regulations to be approved by a joint session in Congress. Republicans see the bill as a necessary check on the executive branch, while Democrats dismiss it as a way to gut much-needed regulations.

Calling the legislation “groundbreaking,” Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) said the REINS Act will curb expensive regulations. “The outgoing Administration broke Constitutional restraints time and time again,” said Duncan, a co-sponsor of the bill. “Without passing the REINS Act, the boundaries for administrative rule making are endless.”

President Barack Obama used his executive authority to pass a historic number of regulations, much to the chagrin of the Republican-controlled Congress. President Donald Trump has promised to roll back a number of Obama’s executive actions, and it remains to be seen how he will use executive power. But if the REINS Act passes the Senate, it would hamstring Trump’s ability to unilaterally push regulations.

Trump has already indicated he will support the legislation. “I will sign the REINS Act should it reach my desk as President and more importantly I will work hard to get it passed,” he said last year. “The monstrosity that is the Federal Government with its pages and pages of rules and regulations has been a disaster for the American economy and job growth.”

The bill would require congressional approval for regulations that are deemed a “major rule” by the Office of Management and Budget. A “major rule” is a regulation that has costs $100 million or more, increases costs for consumers, and hurts U.S.-based companies in competition with foreign ones. A joint session in Congress would have 70 days to approve any proposed legislation by executive agencies.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said the REINS Act could “end rule-making as we know it.” Referring to the 2008 housing crises and recession, Conyers added: “Without question, it was the lack of regulatory controls that facilitated rampant predatory lending, which nearly destroyed our nation’s economy.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is the REINS Act? appeared first on Law Street.

President Barack Obama is set to face the gauntlet as the Supreme Court gears up to hear a case that challenges the President’s use of executive power, has the potential to wreck havoc on the 2016 Presidential election, and may go beyond judicial power by granting states more rights and control than the national government on a notoriously federally controlled area of law and politics–immigration. Twenty-six states are challenging the President’s executive actions relating to immigration implementations made in 2014 as an abuse of power and an attempt to circumvent Capitol Hill on policy making.

To date, the case is scheduled to be resolved by the court in June 2016 as the Supreme Court issued that it would review the case, thereby granting the President the authority to execute the programs prior to leaving office, should he be victorious. Read on to learn more about the executive actions in question, the procedural posture and legal history of the case, and what it all could mean for U.S. citizens and aliens in the future.

DAPA and DACA: The Troublesome Two

On November 20, 2014, an executive order was issued expanding the rights of individuals within the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and introduced the creation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA).

DACA, a program created in 2012, allows undocumented young people who came to the U.S. as children relief from deportation so long as specific criteria are met. These criteria include: 1) must be under 31 years of age as of June 15, 2012; 2) must have entered the U.S. under the age of 16; 3) must show continuous residence in the U.S. from June 15, 2007 until the present; 4) entered the U.S. without inspection (EWI) or fell out of a lawful visa status before June 15, 2012; 5) were physically present in the U.S. when applying for consideration of deferred action; 6) are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a GED, or have been honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or armed forces; 7) have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor, or more than three misdemeanors; and 8) do not pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Initially, DACA was available for a period of two years at a time–meaning that individuals were only granted temporary relief for two years before they had to re-apply and be approved by the government again. DACA also included a work authorization for those approved, but the executive action of 2014 made it and the work authorization renewable in three-year increments. Additionally, the requirement that the individual be under 31 years old as of June 15, 2012 or now no longer applies. The new DACA provisions do not discriminate against those currently over 31 years old. Further, the eligibility cut-off date was moved from June 15, 2007 to January 1, 2010. Anyone applying must show physical presence in the U.S. prior to January 1, 2010 and during the time of application.

DAPA, unlike DACA, did not have a predecessor. Under DAPA, individuals that have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (LPRs) may obtain relief from removal should they meet the following criteria: 1) as of November 20, 2014, have a son or daughter who is a citizen or LPR; 2) have continuously resided in the U.S. since or before January 1, 2010; 3) are physically present in the U.S. as of November 20, 2014 and during their application for consideration; 4) have no lawful status as of November 20, 2014; 5) are not an enforcement priority; and 5) present no additional factors that would deem the granting of their application inappropriate.

Deferred action is an administrative mechanism used by the U.S. government to de-prioritize individual cases for removal for “humanitarian reasons, administrative convenience, or in the interest of the Department’s overall enforcement mission.” It is a way for the government to categorize the urgency with which individuals be removed from the country. Generally speaking, deferred action carries great discretion. It can be terminated at any point should the U.S. Department of Homeland Security deem termination appropriate and necessary. Furthermore, receiving DACA or DAPA does not provide legal status, a pathway to citizenship, or a pathway to obtain a green card, but rather permits for an individual to be legally present within the U.S. for a specified period of time. In order to be a valid permission, deferred action applications must be considered on a case-by-case basis and do not apply as all-inclusive or sweeping legal policies. An application process is required and permission must be granted for an individual to continue to stay within the U.S.

Substantive rights, immigration status, and pathways to citizenship are under the control of Congress. Only Congress can confer such rights and policies upon individuals within the confines of the U.S. However, the Executive Branch has the authority to set forth policies under prosecutorial discretion and deferred action so long as they fall within the framework of existing law.

The 26 states named in the lawsuit are greatly dissatisfied by the way that President Obama has taken to resolving the many pitfalls of current immigration policy and justice. A major point of contention for the states is that the President allegedly worked to circumvent Congressional authority and undermined the importance of the notice-and-comment process pursuant to administrative law. Notice-and-comment is an informal rule-making process, codified in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under § 553. It requires the agency proposing the rule to publish its proposal in the Federal Register and grant opponents or supporters of the proposed rule to comment, amend, present data and evidence for or against, and generally speaking, participate in the development of a newly proposed rule.

Additionally, while immigration is an issue controlled by federal law, the states fear that the changes made to federal immigration laws will place a great burden on the states to change their laws and be forced to provide services they are unable or unwilling to provide to individuals lacking legal status. Specifically, some states worry that the quasi-legal status and work authorizations will require the states to provide “state-subsidized driver’s licenses and unemployment insurance.”

Image Courtesy Of [Nevele Otseog via Flickr]

History of Legal Action: The Procedural Posture

Shortly after President Obama’s executive action on November 20, 2014, the highly publicized Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, challenged the action on behalf of Arizona in a case called Arpaio v. Obama. Arpaio’s lawsuit was dismissed by the Washington, D.C. federal court and upheld unanimously by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on August 14, 2015. That decision has not been appealed to the Supreme Court.

Following in Sheriff Arpaio’s footsteps, 17 states filed a lawsuit, with 9 states joining thereafter, challenging President Obama in Texas v. United States. The President held the support of 15 states and D.C., who filed “friend of the court” briefs on his behalf. Ultimately, the Texas federal court blocked President Obama’s initiatives on a procedural basis on February 16, 2015. U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen found that Texas had standing, or legal capacity and authority, to sue and that the President did not comply with the requirements of the APA, particularly the requisite need for notice-and-comment. It rationalized that the changes enacted by President Obama were substantive rules rather than simple alterations to existing and general policy, which required a specific procedural process.

The Department of Justice subsequently appealed the lower court’s decision and argued the case in front of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 10, 2015. In a split decision, the Fifth Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling, 2-1. The majority decision, authored by Judge Jerry E. Smith, found that Texas did, in fact, have standing to sue and that the changes to policy would greatly increase state costs and burden the states with additional processes and services as required by the national law. While it recognized that judicial review was unavailable under the APA in matters pertaining to agency discretion, it noted that the changes made to DACA and DAPA required notice-and-comment rule-making, and therefore, were non-discretionary. Further, the court ruled on an issue unaddressed by the district court and found that the President’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was misguided and inaccurate because it vested great authority to the Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This indirectly re-classified the specified classifications of immigrants codified in the INA and those petitioning to enter, all in violation of the Act itself.

Judge Carolyn King of the Fifth Circuit delivered a blunt dissent, ultimately stating, “I have a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.” Further, Judge King argued that the case should have been dismissed as it follows prosecutorial discretion and therefore, not subject to review by federal courts. In criticism of her colleagues, she penned that allowing states to dictate national policy, particularly in areas solely within federal control, would be a great intrusion to the long-standing separations between government and state. Judge King added that the President’s executive actions were matters of general policy not subject to notice-and-comment procedure and that the interpretation of law under the INA actually sought to further the Department of Homeland Security’s mission in “[e]stablishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities.”

Critics of the decision, including Judge King herself, highlighted the fact that the expedited appeal was anything but, as the Fifth Circuit took a very long time to render an opinion, likely in an effort to place the case under review by the Supreme Court after the conclusion of President Obama’s term in office.

The Petition Filed by the Department of Justice

In a writ of certiorari petition filed on November 20, 2015, exactly one year from the President’s executive actions, the Department of Justice sought review of U.S. v. Texas by the Supreme Court. While the Court has yet to make a decision as to whether it will review the case or not, the petition outlined key elements of President Obama’s argument demanding for review of this extremely crucial issue.

The DOJ Claims Valid Authority for Action Over States

The Department of Justice highlighted that the authority to make any and all immigration laws and policies is vested in the federal government, particularly under the control of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who hold authority to establish regulations pertaining to removal and admissibility rules. The Department has broad discretion over enforcement of immigration laws and the ability to prioritize which offenses or conduct deems immediate removal and which groups are not the top priority of government funds allocated for removal and enforcement. While 11 million removable aliens are estimated to live in the United States, the Department can only remove approximately 4 percent of those individuals within a given year. Congress has granted the Department $1.6 billion to remove those convicted of deportable crimes, thereby committing to the Secretary’s discretion in handling these cases in the most efficient manner possible. Therefore, prioritizing is of utmost importance to best allocate funding.

Additionally, the Department emphasized that continued presence through deferred action does not violate any criminal laws, as removal and inadmissibility under immigration laws is civil in nature. Deferred action has been an “exercise in administrative discretion,” that can be revoked at any point in time. It does not offer any legal status to those that fall within its classification. What is offered under deferred action, however, is work authorization protecting such individuals from exploitation under U.S. labor laws, subjecting them to taxation, Social Security, and welfare payments, and providing them with a way to make ends meet so they do not become a burden on U.S. citizens and society. Only “qualified” aliens are entitled to public benefits provided by the state in which they reside, and individuals lawfully allowed to stay within the U.S. under deferred action status are not deemed “qualified,” therefore, they are not entitled to public benefits unless their state specifically provides those under its own laws.

The Sticking Points: Substantive Arguments Against the States

Deferred action has been utilized in a variety of ways to grant individuals lawful presence in the U.S. Examples include individuals who petitioned under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and individuals whose lawful family members were killed on September 11, 2001 or in combat were granted temporary relief from deportation under deferred action. Decisions made based on deferred action have legally and historically been barred from judicial review.

Key elements of the petition included the Secretary’s discretion in enforcing immigration laws under resource constraints, the historical utilization of deferred action and its revocability, the security and economic interests in paying fees and applying for work authorization, and the effect that the divided Court of Appeals decision could have on the States’ ability to “frustrate the federal government’s enforcement of the Nation’s immigration laws.”

The petition discussed the lack of standing or authority by the states to bring the lawsuit, stating that private parties lack any “judicially cognizable interest” in the enforcement of immigration laws that are not threatened by prosecution, nor do collateral consequences of federal immigration policy grant a state standing to bring suit. Further, the Department of Justice noted that even if the states were able to show standing to sue, they would have to identify injury resulting from the specified policy that affects it in an “individual way.” Such an expansive reading of state standing would open a door for many more federal-state disputes in the long run and give states far-reaching and independent authority to challenge federal laws with more regularity.

The government further argued that the states lack a valid claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, as the Act does not allow suit by every individual “suffering an injury in fact,” and strictly limits the scope of judicial review to those who are “adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action.” Additionally, the government noted that the agency’s discretion in deferred action is not reviewable by the courts as there is “no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.”

An entire section of the petition offered examples of the Secretary’s authority to implement deferred action without challenge due to the long-standing history and nation of this power. Ultimately, the Department of Justice pointed to the authority vested in the Secretary to implement the executive actions as lawful within the scope of his power. Finally, the petition outlines the reasoning for why the deferred action is not subject to notice-and-comment rule-making as required by the APA because the actions were “general statements of policy” exempt from such procedural requirements.

What Could It All Mean?

Should the Supreme Court uphold the Fifth Circuit’s decision, great authority would be vested onto the states over a historically federal issue, making it inexplicably difficult to pass any immigration laws on a national level. It would force millions of people, subject to removal but not removal priorities, to continue living in the U.S., working off the books or not working at all, potentially creating a burden on society in the long run. Further, it could ultimately punish the individuals that gained temporary lawful relief under the 2012 DACA provisions that have never been challenged by any of the 26 states in question. The decisions spanning over the last year could potentially invalidate the 2012 DACA actions as well.

While the importance of review is undoubtedly clear, from an administrative law aspect, a constitutional law aspect, as well as a separation of powers aspect, it is unclear exactly what the fruit of review will be. If history were any indication, President Obama would be victorious in his challenge. However, the lower courts have addressed key issues that fall squarely within the context of interpretation and interestingly added some of their own issues, which remain undecided by the district court. How the Supreme Court reads and interprets the statutes in question, as well as its analysis of the interworkings of several federal laws will be determinative for its decision. This may ultimately be a case about procedure and the process of implementation rather than power and constitutionality of law.

Resources

Primary

United States of America v. Texas: Writ of Certiorari

 U.S. Department of Homeland Security: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion With Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and With Respect to Certain Individuals Who are Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents

Additional

Politico: Obama Administration Takes Immigration Battle to Supreme Court

Politico: SCOTUS Keeps Obama Immigration Case on Track For Ruling by Summer

Cornell University Law School – Legal Information Institute: 5 U.S. Code § 553 – Rule Making

Immigration Equality: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

 The Atlantic: A Ruling Against the Obama Administration on Immigration

 The New York Times: Appeals Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Immigration Plans

American Immigration Council: Understanding the Legal Challenges to Executive Action

 National Public Radio (NPR): Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case on Obama’s Immigration Actions

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Federal Government’s Immigration Showdown: SCOTUS Will Decide appeared first on Law Street.

How far can government agencies go when trying to implement new regulations? According to a review from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the EPA broke the law in its push to gain public support for its new water regulation rule, using what the GAO calls “covert propaganda.” As social media becomes an increasingly important platform for government agencies to share information with the public, it’s also becoming clear that a line exists in terms of how far their outreach can go.

The EPA rule that prompted the campaign sought to better define and expand the agency’s authority to regulate the “navigable waters” of the United States under the Clean Water Act. A series of Supreme Court decisions made it particularly difficult to determine the waters under EPA authority, so the agency proposed a new rule to create clarity while also expanding its jurisdiction. The rule immediately became controversial. In fact, Republicans and a range of business interests, from farmers to the oil industry, came out against the rule before it took effect. Critics argued that the rule was a sweeping example of government overreach with the EPA seeking to expand its authority to regulate and dictate the use of land near water sources. The interest groups opposing the new legislation created a particularly powerful coalition, lobbying members of Congress and creating public relations campaigns to communicate their opposition.

In response to the strong opposition from the business lobby, the EPA went on its own social media campaign to spread information about the new rule during the public comment period. A New York Times article noticed the unconventional methods employed by the EPA, citing observers concerns that the agency was overstepping its bounds.

After a review of the EPA’s practices, the GAO report identified four social media campaigns initiated by the EPA, concluding that two of them violated anti-lobbying restrictions and laws that prohibit publicity or propaganda for agencies that receive Congressional appropriations. While government officials and the heads of certain agencies are allowed to explicitly advocate for certain policies, federal agencies themselves are not allowed to lobby the public.

The EPA’s position, which is reflected in the GAO report, maintains that the agency acted properly in its use of social media. In a statement given to the New York Times, an EPA Spokesperson said:

We use social media tools just like all organizations to stay connected and inform people across the country about our activities… At no point did the E.P.A. encourage the public to contact Congress or any state legislature.

The GAO took issue with the agency’s use of a platform called Thunderclap, which allows a message to be posted across supporters’ Facebook and Twitter accounts all at once. The problem identified by the GAO was that when the message was shared across social media, which may have reached as many as 1.8 million people, the EPA was not was not easily identifiable as the source. Because government information is supposed to be closely tied to its source, the use of Thunderclap constituted “covert propaganda.”

The EPA also used a #DitchtheMyth campaign on social media, which allowed people to share the agency’s campaign with their networks. The GAO argued that this was acceptable because the prescribed message referenced the EPA’s official Twitter accounts and the graphics used the EPA logo. The #CleanWaterRules campaign was also considered lawful by the GAO. This campaign did not violate the publicity restrictions placed on the agency because the GAO found that the communications did not qualify as self-aggrandizement, but rather were intended to promote discussion and associate the proposed rule with the agency.

Finally, the GAO found that an EPA’s blog post violated anti-lobbying restrictions because of how hyperlinks connected people with advocacy groups while knowing that members of Congress explicitly opposed the rule. A blog post by an EPA communications director illustrated some of the ways the rule would help people in everyday activities like surfing and drinking beer. The blog post linked to a National Resource Defense Council page, which talked about the effects of clean water on beer brewing, and a Surfrider Foundation article about how pollution affects surfers. Both websites also featured some sort of action section that encourages visitors to contact their legislators about the EPA rule. The GAO concludes:

EPA violated the anti-lobbying provisions contained in appropriations acts for FY 2015 when it obligated and expended funds in connection with establishing the hyperlinks to the webpages of environmental action groups

By hyperlinking to these advocacy organizations’ websites, the EPA associated itself with their message–including appeals to contact Congress about open legislation–which violate the anti-lobbying restrictions placed on the agency.

While these efforts don’t necessarily constitute flagrant abuse, they do seem to violate the restrictions placed on the EPA as the GAO review found. In its report, the GAO recommended that the agency determines how much it spent on unlawful practices and notify Congress and the President that the violated the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal employees and agencies from spending unauthorized or unappropriated funds.

This finding illustrates the particularly difficult position many government agencies can find themselves in while trying to establish new rules and regulations. The EPA is arguably one of the best examples, as a highly polarized Congress has made its efforts particularly controversial. As more and more regulation is created through executive action, efforts like the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Waters of the United States rule have come under more and more criticism from opponents. Much of this ends up being manifested in lawsuits and political disagreement–the new water rule is currently facing challenges from 18 different states. But as the debate rages on, agencies are tasked with informing the public about of their policies and potential effects. Using social media to do so can be particularly effective, but as the GAO ruling shows, limitations certainly exist.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did the EPA Illegally Lobby the American People? appeared first on Law Street.

Americans must abide by governing laws at a variety of levels throughout the country. Aside from the U.S. Constitution, each state has its own constitution further detailing the everyday relations between the state government and the people. But what about international law? Can we be affected as individuals by agreements the United States has entered into with foreign countries? Although it may seem a little far fetched, these questions have come up time and again in our court system. You may be surprised by how international law can affect you.

International Law in America

Overview

Two sources primarily make up international law: international agreements and customary practice. In adherence to U.S. law, international agreements can be established by entering into a treaty or an executive agreement. The executive branch has authority over treaties and executive agreements, but treaties need the consent of Congress as well. While Congress may be part of a joint agreement between the executive branch and Congress, that is not necessary; the president is only required to notify Congress of an upcoming executive order. Treaties and executive agreements may or may not be self-executing. Non-self-executing treaties and executive agreements do not immediately establish U.S. law, but evoke a promise to enact domestic legislation in order to enforce them in a timely fashion.

The strength of international law within the U.S. court system depends on a variety of circumstances. Self-executing treaties and executive treaties are generally considered to have equal status to federal law, superior status to state law, and inferior status to the Constitution. Generally speaking, non-self-executing agreements have limited strength. The question still remains whether implemented legislation required from these agreements can be reviewed for validity by the Supreme Court.

The second source of international law is customary international practice. Customary international law is essentially general practice–for example genocide has been forbidden by common practice even before it was codified. It is generally understood that U.S. statutes that conflict with customary international practice will reign supreme, although that phenomenon is relatively rare.

What is the Treaty Power?

The Constitution designates that the President has the authority to sign treaties “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” and a 2/3 vote in the Senate. The treaty power maintains our system of checks and balances and makes passing a treaty a relatively hard process. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution calls treaties “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

The U.S. is governed by both federal and state authority, and jurisdiction is established by the Constitution. The 10th Amendment reserves all power to the states when not specifically delegated otherwise or specifically prohibited in the Constitution. So federal authority can ratify a treaty. But what happens when the laws meant to implement the treaty overstep into state jurisdiction? Technically, that could be increasing Congress’ powers. These kinds of inconsistencies make the integration of international law even more of a gray area.

What is the Necessary and Proper Clause?

The clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, under Article 1 of the Constitution empowers Congress “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” The Necessary and Proper Clause grants the federal government power to govern outside its set natural jurisdiction when required to enforce federal laws. This clause is specifically used to justify implemented legislation in enforcing international treaties and executive agreement.

Here is a quick video explaining the clause with regard to the 10th Amendment.

These are, of course, not the only aspects of American law that affect the application of international law, but they are the ones that are most often discussed and considered when attempting to determine the scope of that application.

Case Study: Bond v. United States

In some ways, this case is more apt for a soap opera than the U.S. Supreme Court, but very important legal questions were hidden under the dramatics. In this case, international policy implicitly affected a single person. An individual right, specifically the 10th Amendment, was called into question. In an even rarer scenario, the case was brought before the Supreme Court twice. The first question posed to the Supreme Court was whether we can challenge international laws (treaties) as individuals using our individual rights and the 10th Amendment? The second, can the Supreme Court deem unconstitutional implemented legislation brought on by international law?

Summary of the Initial Case

In Lansdale, Pennsylvania, Carol Bond discovered that her friend, Myrlinda Haynes, was pregnant from an affair with her husband, Clifford Bond. In a flare of passion, she vowed revenge. Bond is a trained microbiologist, and at the time worked for the chemical manufacturer Rohm and Haas. She took advantage of her connection to steal 10-chloro-10H-phenoxarsine from Rohm and Haas and ordered potassium dichromate over Amazon. The chemicals can be poisonous with minimal topical contact. Over the course of at least 24 attempts, Bond spread the chemicals on Haynes’ house and car door handles and mailbox. Fortunately, Haynes was often able to spot the chemicals from noticeable color distortions and only suffered from a mild hand burn that was cleaned with water.

After several attempts to contact local police to no avail, Haynes brought the matter to federal officers of the Postal Service. At the culmination of the investigation, Bond was ultimately charged with two counts of possessing and using a chemical weapon in violation of Title 18 of the United States Code and section 229 of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 and two counts of mail theft. Bond pleaded guilty and had the right to appeal. She was sentenced to six years in federal prison.

What is the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998?

The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act (CWCIA) of 1998 implements the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) into U.S. federal legislation. Section 229 is the penalty provision.

Read More: The Forgotten Chemical WMDs: Chemical Weapons

The United States signed the CWC on January 13, 1993 and initiated it in April 1997. The international convention currently has 190 state parties. The CWC prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. The National Implementation Measures clause prohibits “natural and legal persons anywhere on its territory … from undertaking any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.” Section 229 of the CWCIA specifically decrees it “unlawful for any person knowingly to develop, produce, otherwise acquire….retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon.”

The CWC was signed with specific intentions aimed at international peace. It is a ceasefire for all countries involved in the manufacture or possession of chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction, as means of combat to ensure global safety. The treaty is non-self-executing, meaning the CWC itself didn’t establish any U.S. laws, but evoked a promise from the U.S. to enact future legislation in accordance to the treaty.

First Supreme Court Case

The first question at hand: Does Bond have standing to challenge the federal chemical weapons charges filed against her under the CWCIA claiming her 10th Amendment rights? The answer ended up being yes. The court found that a federally indicted criminal defendant has the right to challenge the statue raising the question of federalism and states’ rights under the 10th Amendment.

The following video recaps the initial case summary and further details the defense’s arguments.

The court also questioned whether the CWCIA is valid under the “necessary and proper” clause to enforce the Treaty Power. The Supreme Court opted out of making that decision and remanded the case to the Third Circuit.

Third Circuit Case

The Third Circuit stated the validity of a treaty was “beyond [its] ken.” The creation of treaties is outside the courts’ powers; they are created by the President and Senate. The court ruled that for a valid treaty, implementing legislation need only to be “rationally related.”

The Third Circuit used the 1920 case Missouri v. Holland as precedent. That case concerned the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, a treaty established with Great Britain. The regulation of the hunting of migratory birds was previously deemed as a state concern, outside of Congress’ jurisdiction. The former case declared “the premise that principles of federalism will ordinarily impose no limitation on Congress’ ability to write laws supporting treaties” is implicit under the “necessary and proper” clause.

This decision raised natural concerns. Onlookers worried that if the court refused to decide on the validity of treaties, then anything goes. The President and Senate could ultimately ratify a treaty that required implementing laws that would otherwise be gravely illegal. Congress could theoretically grant itself powers it previously lacked through the Treaty Power.

This video features Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, a Law Professor at Georgetown University and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, further discussing the merits of the Treaty Power with regard to the case. Rosenkranz advocates limited power of the Treaty Power and enforcement of domestic law.

Second Supreme Court Case

The case was brought back to the Supreme Court to further test the scope of the treaty power. The case had an opportunity to create a landmark decision but fell short. The majority response failed to make a decision in that regard. It did side with the defense, however, claiming that Bond’s actions didn’t fall within the CWCIA in the first place.

The Court emphasized the importance of Congress’ intent when implementing federal laws with regard to treaties. The CWCIA was not intended to punish local criminal activity, which has generally been a state concern. The Court also considered the definition of a chemical weapon, and decided Bond’s chemical choices did not fit. Justice Roberts explained, “In sum, the global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the Federal Government to reach into the kitchen cupboard, or to treat a local assault with a chemi­cal irritant as the deployment of a chemical weapon.” Although Bond’s actions didn’t fall under the CWCIA, the decision casted “serious doubts about whether the treaty power can reach local crimes.”

The Court unanimously decided  in favor of Bond, although Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas wrote separate concurring opinions. They did not agree with the majority opinion that Bond’s actions didn’t fall under the CWCIA. They believed the CWCIA expressly prohibited “toxic substances” outside of “peaceful purposes.” The three justices sided with Bond in belief that the CWCIA is unconstitutional and goes outside of Congress’ enumerated powers. Treaties should only concern “matters of international intercourse,” not “matters of purely domestic regulation.”

So although the majority avoided the issues of the Treaty Power, Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas faced it right on. While the gray areas of international law and national application still exist, this at least hints to the fact that the Supreme Court may not hold American citizens to international laws that infringe on their rights in the future.

Conclusion

Can Americans be held to International Laws? It seems so. What if they intrude on individual and states’ rights?  The first Bond v. U.S. decision decreed we have the legal right to raise objections. The Supreme Court decision ensures our right as individuals to check the federal government when entering international agreements. It is important that the balance between state and federal government power stays in check. Even if the President and Senate can legally ratify international treaties, it doesn’t mean they should if they “violate traditional American rights, including the individual rights of federalism and the separation of powers.” American law, as always, reigns triumphant in the U.S.

Reources

Primary

Congressional Research Service: International Laws and Agreements

Justia: Bond v. United States

U.S. Chemical Weapons Convention: National Implementation Measures

Additional

Cornell University Law School: 18 U.S. Code & 229

Heritage Guide: Necessary and Proper Clause

Heritage Guide: Treaty Clause

Legal Information Institute: CRS Annotated Constitution

Atlantic: Bond v. U.S. Doesn’t Mean Latvian Cops Are Coming For Your Guns

The Heritage Foundation: Bond v. United States

Slate: Chemical Reaction

Washington Post: Thoughts on Bond v United States

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Are Your Individual Rights When it Comes to International Law? appeared first on Law Street.