Please help us improve the Executive Functions Roundup by taking a few minutes to complete this brief survey.
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel released an opinion on Monday concluding that executive privilege may extend to the president’s private advisers who do not work in the executive branch. (Opinion.)
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis (E.D.N.Y.) on Monday granted the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss an indictment against Indian billionaire businessman Gautam Adani on charges including conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. While noting that “irregularities in the decision to dismiss the Indictment are concerning,” Judge Garaufis ultimately determined that, based on the evidence before the court, the defendant’s pledge to invest $10 billion in the United States was a “non-consideration” in the Justice Department’s decision to seek a dismissal. (Memorandum & Order.) (NYT.)
President Trump on Monday signed an executive order recommending children receive immunizations against fewer diseases than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends. The order also directs the Attorney General to support legal challenges to state laws that fail “to provide religious and medical exemptions from childhood and adolescent immunization requirements.” (Executive Order.) (NYT.)
The Trump administration’s expansion of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s mandatory detention policy has triggered tens of thousands of emergency lawsuits nationwide and strained the federal judiciary, according to an analysis by Politico. (Politico.)
Steve Vladeck analyzed the legality of President Trump’s new birthright citizenship orders. (One First.)
Mae Thompson, Kristine Beckerle, and Luke Moffett argued that the Trump administration’s rollback of civilian harm mitigation and response procedures “represents a dangerous retreat” from the consensus that effective civilian harm response is crucial to effective military operations. (Lawfare.)
Pending Interim Order Applications Involving the U.S. Government in the Supreme Court
Trump v. California: The government filed an application on July 27 requesting the Supreme Court to stay a district court injunction that blocked federal agencies from implementing certain portions of the president’s March 31 executive order entitled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” The 23 states and the District of Columbia challenging the order filed a consolidated opposition on August 3, arguing that a stay “would allow the federal government to rush out an unprecedented, legally indefensible voter-verification and ballot-interception program.” The government filed a reply on August 4, arguing that the states rest their challenge on “speculation about what impact the Executive Order would have if it were ultimately implemented in violation of federal law.”
Alabama v. California: Twelve states filed an application on July 29 requesting the Supreme Court to stay a district court injunction that blocked federal agencies from implementing certain portions of the president’s March 31 executive order entitled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” The 23 states and the District of Columbia challenging the order filed a consolidated opposition on August 3. The twelve states filed a reply on August 4, arguing that the executive order “imposes zero obligations on the States or public.”