Please click here to opt in to receive the Executive Functions Roundup via email and to subscribe to Executive Functions.
Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook on Thursday sued President Trump over his decision to fire her from the Federal Reserve Board and sought immediate reinstatement. (Bloomberg.) The president had maintained that the removal was “for cause” and thus authorized under the Federal Reserve Act, 12 USC §242. (NYT.) For discussions of the legality of the firing and its implications for executive power, see Lev Menand (NYT) and Jack Goldsmith and Aditya Bamzai (Executive Functions). See previous Roundups for background on Cook’s firing.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia on Wednesday asked Judge Paula Xinis (D.Md.) to grant him asylum, as the administration seeks to deport him a second time. Judge Xinis indicated that she does not have jurisdiction over the asylum claim, but will hold a hearing on his legal challenge to deportation in early October. See previous Roundups for background on the legal proceedings. (NYT.)
The New York Times reports that the Trump administration’s searches of John Bolton’s residence and office on Monday stem from a long-running investigation into his handling of sensitive information. (NYT.) See a previous Roundup for background on the investigation of Mr. Bolton.
Ed Whelan criticizes a recent Ninth Circuit decision granting Ibarra-Perez, a foreign national granted asylum in the US, the ability to challenge his removal under the Tort Claims Act in spite of a statute barring federal courts from “hear[in]g any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action . . . to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.” (National Review.)
Steve Vladek criticizes the Trump administration’s emergency application to the Supreme Court in Trump v. Global Health Council, et al. for “contriving the procedural emergency that the Solicitor General now claims justifies intervention by the justices; downplaying the fact that the government forfeited the substantive claim on which it claims it is likely to succeed on the merits…and misrepresenting what happened in the lower courts.” (One First.) See a previous Roundup for background on the ongoing litigation.
William Baude argues, in response to a new paper by Keith Whittington, that the historical complexities of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause do not make the Trump administration’s order eliminating birthright citizenship lawful. (Divided Argument.)
Pending Interim Order Applications Involving the U.S. Government in the Supreme Court
Noem v. Perdomo: The government filed an application on August 7 to stay a federal district court order preventing federal immigration officials in Los Angeles and six other California counties from conducting detentive stops based on the following factors, according to the application: “[1] apparent race or ethnicity; [2] speaking in Spanish or accented English; [3] presence at a location where illegal aliens are known to gather; and [4] working or appearing to work in a particular type of job.” Pedro Vasquez Perdomo filed a response in opposition to the government’s application for a stay on August 12. The government filed a reply in support of its application for a stay on August 13.
Trump v. Global Health: The government filed an application on August 26 to stay a federal district court preliminary injunction that ordered the government to “make available for obligation the full amount of funds that Congress appropriated for foreign assistance programs.”