The Washington Post

Weighing in on the legal extremism of the Obama Administration

I agree with Ilya, writing below, that the Obama Administration’s legal positions have been extreme, and I agree with Orin,writing below, that one can’t measure the extremism of the Obama Administration simply by counting 9-0 Supreme Court votes. But here are some examples of Obama Administration extremism, from Supreme Court litigation and otherwise:

(1) Hosanna-Tabor: At oral argument, the Justices clarified that the administration’s position was that churches have no free exercise or establishment clause right to choose their clergy free from government interference.  This was contrary to the position previously taken by every circuit court ruling on the issue, and contrary to what just about all law and religion scholars, save a few on the far left who think that the government should force the Catholic Church to accept women priests and the like, believed the First Amendment to require.  At oral argument, Justice Kagan deemed the government’s position “amazing.”   The government argued that, hey, churches could still rely on the right to expressive association, which applies to all non-commercial entities, if the government tried to interfere with their choice of clergy via antidiscrimination law or otherwise.  Making that argument required a huge amount of chutzpah, given that everyone knows that liberal lawyers of the sort who populate the Obama Administration DOJ hate the leading case on expressive association, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, precisely because it provides private non-profit institutions with some  autonomy to discriminate in employment.  Not surprisingly, the government lost Hosanna Tabor 9-0. If it could  have been 50-0, it would have been.

(2) Libya and the War Powers Act: The War Powers Act provides that on commencement of foreign hostilities involving American forces, the president must inform Congress, and then must withdraw forces within ninety days absent Congressional approval.  Defense Department lawyers told the president the War Powers Act applied to the bombing of Libya.  OLC lawyers told the president the same.  The president then went trolling for a lawyer who would say the opposite, and found, of all people, State Department legal advisor Harold Koh, who ironically had built his academic career on arguing that the Constitution forbids the president from acting unilaterally in national security matters.  Koh’s legal rationale was that bombing the heck out of Libya did not constitute “hostilities” under the Act.  Most lawyers I know who are familiar with the issue can’t repeat this argument with a straight face.  The strongest “defense” I’ve heard of Koh’s reasoning, from a law professor sympathetic to the administration, is that Koh’s argument, adopted by the president, “isn’t completely ridiculous”–which is not, of course, to say it wasn’t extreme.

(3) Unilaterally delaying Obamacare mandates for transparently political reasons.  If there’s anyone who’s managed to come up with a plausible legal defense of the president unilaterally delaying enforcement of mandatory Obamacare rules past their statutory timeframe so they won’t affect the 2014 midterm elections, I haven’t seen it yet.  And if there’s anyone who’s managed to come up with a plausible case that these delays are not in fact primarily political in nature, I haven’t seen that yet, either.  The Obama Administration and its government-by-Friday-afternoon-blogpost (h/t Josh Blackman) announcing changes to  the ACA seems predicated on the very radical legal theory that “if we can get away with it because no one has standing to challenge it, then in effect it’s legal.”

These are hardly the only examples.  Noel Canning, rearranging the ranking of creditors in the Chrysler bankruptcy, appointing “czars” with real policy-making authority to avoid confirmation hearings (see Sollenberger and Rozell, The President’s Czars), DOJ votings rights division lawyers acting on the belief that the Voting Rights Act either doesn’t or shouldn’t be construed to  protect white voters from discrimination in majority-minority districts, the president ordering his underlings not to implement immigration laws to try to accomplish much of what the failed Dream Act was meant to achieve–one can go on and on about the extreme, sometimes truly lawless, “legal positions” this administration has taken.  I don’t think this is merely a difference in degree from prior administrations, Democratic and Republican, but of kind.

David Bernstein is the George Mason University Foundation Professor at the George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, VA. His latest book, Lawless: The Obama Administration's Unprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law, will be published in November.



Success! Check your inbox for details. You might also like:

Please enter a valid email address

See all newsletters

Show Comments

Sign up for email updates from the "Confronting the Caliphate" series.

You have signed up for the "Confronting the Caliphate" series.

Thank you for signing up
You'll receive e-mail when new stories are published in this series.
Most Read



Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Your Three. Videos curated for you.
Play Videos
Deaf banjo player teaches thousands
Unconventional warfare with a side of ale
It's in the details: Five ways to enhance your kitchen makeover
Play Videos
Drawing as an act of defiance
A fighter pilot helmet with 360 degrees of sky
Border collies: A 'mouse trap' for geese on the National Mall
Play Videos
Bao: The signature dish of San Francisco
This man's job is binge-watching for Netflix
What you need to know about Planned Parenthood
Play Videos
How to save and spend money at college
Pandas, from birth to milk to mom
Europe's migrant crisis, explained
Next Story
Prof. William Birdthistle (guest-blogging) · June 26, 2014

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.