Rethinking Legal Conservatism

This is the time for us to think through whether an entity as august as the Federalist Society should embrace a move toward a constitutional conservatism. It strikes me as dangerous in terms of the underlying issues, but more importantly, as a step away from the fundamental insight that the Federalist Society had, which was that judges should be restrained because they lack the democratic pedigree of the political branches. There should be an impulse of judicial restraint, and, unless something is clearly unconstitutional, courts should not be mucking around with legislation and declaring it unconstitutional, no matter how novel it may be

Remarks by Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal

Few have served the public with greater distinction than Justice John Paul Stevens. That service began with Justice Stevens\u27s work as a naval intelligence officer during World War II, continued through his five years of service as a judge on the Seventh Circuit, and culminated with thirty-four and a half years on the United States Supreme Court. It also included a twenty-six-day stint in September 2005, during which Justice Stevens served as the Acting Chief Justice of the United States

The Solicitor General and Confession of Error

Confessions of error have a long history. From the very beginning of the Solicitor General\u27s position, we have had confessions of error. All Solicitors General-it doesn\u27t matter whether they are appointed by a Republican or a Democrat-have confessed error, roughly at the pace of two to three times per Supreme Court term

Sunsetting Judicial Opinions

Contemporary constitutional law, in its quest for judicial restraint, has primarily focused on the how of judging - what interpretive methods will constrain the decisionmaker? This Article, by contrast, focuses on the when - if there are reasons to think that today\u27s judicial decisions might later prove to be problematic, then are there methods that alter the timing of those decisions\u27 impact to produce better outcomes? This Article outlines one new method for judicial decisionmaking in the post-9/11 world. Informed by pervasive legislative practices, I contend that the Supreme Court should prospectively declare that some of its national security opinions will sunset, meaning that they will lapse as binding precedent

Stochastic Constraint

This essay reviews Power and Constraint: The Accountable Presidency After 9/11 by Jack Goldsmith (2012). With The Terror Presidency, Professor Jack Goldsmith wrote, hands down, the very best analysis of the national security issues surrounding President George W. Bush\u27s tenure. In Power and Constraint: The Accountable Presidency After 9/11, Goldsmith returns to the same set of problems, but adopts a different tack. He argues that the modern wartime Executive is constrained in new ways beyond the traditional system of checks and balances, and that these new constraints combine to create an effective system that checks executive power. Though the modern wartime Executive may disregard traditional limits on presidential power and attempt to act unilaterally, new checks from an aggressive press, a watchful and technologically enabled public, and the legalization of warfare combine to constrain the executive branch. Goldsmith argues that this system is the type of reciprocal restraint of which our Founders would have approved (p. 243). Goldsmith\u27s claim ultimately boils down to one about how presidential constraint arises from a stochastic melange produced by these newly empowered actors. But in his analysis of the constraint imposed on the modern Executive by this new system of checks and balances, Goldsmith fails to account for the values served by good process. Just as with a student\u27s four-page exam (which might reach a correct result but probably will not), the path by which the Executive is constrained matters, because it will significantly affect the substantive quality and sustainability of that end result. Goldsmith\u27s new system of accountability relies on a combination of government leaks and self-checking out of fear of reprisal, whereas the traditional system trusts [a]mbition ... to counteract ambition. The latter system--the one envisioned by the Founders--has significantly fewer side effects attached to the process of checking the Executive. In this Review, the author argues that the particular process employed to constrain the Executive has consequences beyond the mere fact of achieving some level of constraint, and the new system of checks and balances has more costs associated with it than the traditional, constitutionally envisioned system, which primarily relies on government officials. In the end, many different methods might be used to achieve constraint, broadly conceived, but the process chosen to reach that constraint has substantive implications. Part I discusses the relationship between the process used to check the Executive and the substance of the constraints imposed. It contends that, just as the Coase Theorem predicts, the initial set of entitlements will strongly influence the eventual result, and that Coasean analysis provides a helpful frame through which to assess Goldsmith\u27s claim that the new constraints he identifies can substitute for Madisonian checks and balances. Part II analyzes Goldsmith\u27s speculation that the modern cycle of permission and constraint is likely to continue, and suggests that future inquiry should examine whether particular policy solutions could be developed, in advance of the next crisis, that might break this cycle

The Public and Private Lives of Presidents

Focusing on a frequent theme in the executive privilege arguments advanced by the Clinton Administration, Neal Kumar Katyal explores the distinction drawn between the public and private lives of the President, particularly in the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky cases. He argues that the Administration\u27s difficulties in asserting executive privilege claims following these cases demonstrate that the public/private distinction is not entirely valid He asserts that, unlike members of Congress who have time when they are not in session, the President is unique in that he is in office twenty-four hours a day. He argues that this special constitutional status puts pressure on the public and private distinction. Professor Katyal maintains that presidents have only a limited reservoir of secrecy from which to draw. Thus, the use of privilege on private mailers such as the Lewinsky investigation not only weakens their ability to claim executive privilege on significant public mailers but it also adversely affects their ability to achieve their political ends

Disruptive Technologies and the Law

In the past two decades, the concept of disruptive technology has gone from theory, to buzz word, to the captivation of the popular imagination. Disruptive innovation goes beyond improving existing products; it seeks to tap unforeseen markets, create products to solve problems consumers don\u27t know that they have, and ultimately to change the face of industry. We are all the beneficiaries of disruption. Every smartphone carrying, MP3-listening, Netflix-watching consumer is taking advantage of technologies once unimaginable, but that now feel indispensable. Silicon Valley\u27s pursuit of disruption will continue to benefit and delight a world of consumers. But where disruption may once have been the secondary result of innovation, disruption has become a goal in and of itself. Today, I want to urge a cautionary note: The tech community\u27s solipsistic focus on disruption, to the exclusion of human and legal values, can be problematic. We can see these potential problems in the development of three areas: mass surveillance, 3D printing, and driverless cars

Digital Architecture as Crime Control

This paper explains how theories of realspace architecture inform the prevention of computer crime. Despite the prevalence of the metaphor, architects in realspace and cyberspace have not talked to one another. There is a dearth of literature about digital architecture and crime altogether, and the realspace architectural literature on crime prevention is often far too soft for many software engineers. This paper will suggest the broad brushstrokes of potential design solutions to cybercrime, and in the course of so doing, will pose severe criticisms of the White House\u27s recent proposals on cybersecurity. The paper begins by introducing four concepts of realspace crime prevention through architecture. Design should: (1) create opportunities for natural surveillance, meaning its visibility and susceptibility to monitoring by residents, neighbors, and bystanders; (2) instill a sense of territoriality so that residents develop proprietary attitudes and outsiders feel deterred from entering a private space; (3) build communities and avoid social isolation; and (4) protect targets of crime. There are digital analogues to each goal. Natural-surveillance principles suggest new virtues of open-source platforms, such as Linux, and territoriality outlines a strong case for moving away from digital anonymity towards psuedonymity. The goal of building communities will similarly expose some new advantages for the original, and now eroding, end-to-end design of the Internet. An understanding of architecture and target prevention will illuminate why firewalls at end points will more effectively guarantee security than will attempts to bundle security into the architecture of the Net. And, in total, these architectural lessons will help us chart an alternative course to the federal government\u27s tepid approach to computer crime. By leaving the bulk of crime prevention to market forces, the government will encourage private barricades to develop - the equivalent of digital gated communities - with terrible consequences for the Net in general and interconnectivity in particular