Please click here to opt in to receive the Executive Functions Roundup via email and to subscribe to Executive Functions.
A unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held on Tuesday that the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act do not violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The panel vacated the district court’s decision, which had dismissed the case on the ground that the qui tam provisions violate the Appointments Clause, and remanded for the court to consider the defendants’ remaining arguments. (Opinion.)
The Electronic Privacy Information Center on Monday filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, challenging implementation of section 2 of the March executive order on citizenship verification in federal elections, which directed the Department of Homeland Security to assemble and transmit lists of U.S. citizens to state election officials. (Complaint.)
Over three dozen defendants in the Minnesota church-protest prosecution on Monday moved to dismiss the federal charges they face. They argued, among other things, that Homeland Security Investigations had no authority to “invoke[] a customs administrative summons 92 times” to build the cases. (Motion.) (NYT.)
The California Legislature passed a bill on Monday providing that federal, state, and local law enforcement “shall not use a wearable electroshock device within the State of California.” (Assembly Bill 2760.) The bill responds to the Trump administration’s announcement earlier in August that it plans to purchase electroshock gloves for federal immigration officers and agents. (NYT.) For background on the announcement and gloves, see a prior Roundup.
Jordan Ascher argued that the “erosion of the presumption of regularity presents significant opportunities to those challenging the Trump administration’s agenda in court.” (Just Security.)
Samuel Bray outlined three arguments for and against the Supreme Court’s interim order holding that the National Trust for Historic Preservation likely lacks standing to sue over the construction of the White House ballroom. (Divided Argument.) Molly Roberts argued the order injects “further confusion” into standing doctrine and is not persuasive. (Lawfare.)
Mark Pollack argued the Trump administration is governing by shakedown—using “discretionary executive authority aggressively as leverage against a wide range of targets, threatening or imposing harm as an instrument of coercive bargaining, and seeking changes in the target’s behavior.” (Lawfare.)
Pending Interim Order Applications Involving the U.S. Government in the Supreme Court
National Republican Congressional Committee v. Brown: The National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee filed an application on August 28 requesting the Supreme Court to stay a Fourth Circuit decision setting aside a Federal Communications Commission public notice on preferential broadcast rates for political advertising. On August 31, the Chief Justice requested a response by noon on September 3. The United States and the Federal Communications Commission filed a response supporting the application on August 31.