Document Type

Working Paper

Publication Date

3-12-2019

SSRN Discipline

Legal Scholarship Network; PSN Subject Matter eJournals; Law & Society eJournals; Law & Society: Public Law eJournals; Legal Anthropology eJournals; Administrative Law eJournals; LSN Subject Matter eJournals; AARN Subject Matter eJournals; Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy eJournals; Political Institutions eJournals; Political Science Network; Anthropology & Archaeology Research Network

Abstract

There is something missing in interpretive theory Recent controversies"”involving for example the first travel ban and funding for sanctuary cities"”demonstrate that presidential "laws" executive orders proclamations and other directives raise important questions of meaning Yet while there is a rich literature on statutory interpretation and a growing one on regulatory interpretation there is no theory about how to discern the meaning of presidential directives Courts for their part have repeatedly assumed that presidential directives should be treated just like statutes But that cannot be right Theories of interpretation depend on both constitutional law and institutional setting For statutes the relevant law comes from Article I and the procedures governing Congress For presidential directives the starting point must be Article II This Article contends that Article II and the distinct institutional setting of the presidency point toward textualism Article II particularly the Opinions Clause gives the President considerable power to structure the process by which he issues directives Drawing on various sources"”including the author's interviews with officials from the Trump Obama and other administrations"”this Article offers a window into that process Since at least the 1930s presidents have invited agency officials to draft negotiate over and redraft presidential directives The final directive signed by the President may not reflect his ideal position instead presidents often issue compromise directives that reflect their subordinates' recommendations This Article argues that courts respect that structure and hold presidents accountable for any mistakes by adhering closely to the text Thus whatever one thinks about honoring the textual compromises that come from Congress there are independent and important reasons to hew strictly to the text that comes from the White House Notably this analysis has important implications not only for interpretive theory but also for broader questions about the constitutional separation of powers In an era of everexpanding presidential power presidents have at times and surprisingly allowed themselves to be constrained by their own administration

Download

Share

COinS