Please click here to opt in to receive the Executive Functions Morning Roundup via email.
The Trump administration filed a motion in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Saturday seeking an emergency stay of a district court judge’s nationwide injunction barring the administration from implementing its policies suspending the entry of refugees into the United States, with exceptions, and halting the disbursement of certain refugee resettlement funds. (Motion.)
Adam Liptak discussed the early signs of the likely far-reaching consequences of the Supreme Court’s conception of executive power in Trump v. United States. Liptak quoted Jack Goldsmith’s statement that, “presidents will use [the ruling] to their enormous new advantage vis-à-vis the other two branches, especially Congress, until the court, in more considered reflection, decides that it ruled imprudently and went too far.” (NYT.)
Cass Sunstein outlined a framework for analyzing the legal questions concerning the Trump administration’s activities. Some, he wrote, fit into each of one of three categories: “normal science,” “deviant science,” or “revolutionary science.” “Normal science” includes questions where “nothing very new is involved”; “deviant science” involves claims that reject norms or largely settled ideas; and “revolutionary science” involves claims that reject “fundamental” features of governance in the United States. (Cass’s Substack.)
Read yesterday’s Roundup for the rest of the weekend’s news and commentary.