Author Archives: Andrew Hessick

Consenting to Adjudication Outside the Article III Courts

by Andrew Hessick — Wednesday, Sept. 20, 2017@andyhessick

A lot of Supreme Court cases involve the meaning of Article III. Most of those cases address whether the Article III courts have jurisdiction over a particular claim. But a handful of the Article III cases focuses on the converse question—whether a tribunal outside of Article III can adjudicate a claim. Article III “vest[s]” the […]

This entry was tagged .

Keeping an Eye on Patchak v. Zinke

by Andrew Hessick — Thursday, July 27, 2017@andyhessick

Next term, the Court will hear Patchak v. Zinke, No. 16-498. The case raises an old question about the line between the power of Congress and the power of the federal courts: The extent to which Congress can direct the outcome of a case. Patchak brought suit under the APA challenging the Department of the […]

This entry was tagged .

Esquivel-Quintana and Chevron

by Andrew Hessick — Wednesday, May 31, 2017@andyhessick

Yesterday, the Court decided Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, an immigration case implicating Chevron. Under Chevron, of course, courts and agencies are bound by unambiguous statutes. But if a statute is ambiguous, courts must defer to reasonable interpretations of that statute rendered by the agency charged with interpreting that statute.   One issue underlying Chevron is identifying what […]

This entry was tagged .

Standing for the New Plaintiffs in the CREW case

by Andrew Hessick — Tuesday, Apr. 18, 2017@andyhessick

Back in January, a group of constitutional law scholars (working with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)) sued President Trump for violating the Emoluments Clause. In a previous post, I explained argued that those scholars did not have Article III standing because they had not alleged a cognizable injury in fact. Today, the […]

This entry was tagged .

Abusing Discretion in Sentencing after Beckles

by Andrew Hessick — Tuesday, Mar. 7, 2017@andyhessick

Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided Beckles v. United States. The case involved a challenge to the federal sentencing guidelines. Section 4B1.1 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines prescribes a sentencing enhancement for certain criminal defendants if the offense of conviction is a “crime of violence.”  At the time of Beckles’s conviction, the guideline defined “crime of […]

This entry was tagged .

Washington State’s Standing To Challenge the Immigration Executive Order

by Andrew Hessick — Monday, Feb. 6, 2017@andyhessick

This past week Washington state jumped into the fight against President Trump’s executive order limiting immigration, filing suit in district court in Washington. The district court issued a nationwide temporary stay of the order, and the United States has now appealed to the Ninth Circuit. One of the major issues in the case is whether […]

This entry was tagged .

Standing and the Emoluments Clause

by Andrew Hessick — Monday, Jan. 23, 2017@andyhessick

Today, a group of constitutional law scholars apparently plan to file a federal lawsuit alleging that President Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause because his hotels are receiving payments from foreign governments.   Although the meaning of the clause is up in the air, roughly speaking the clause prohibits federal officials from taking payments from foreign […]

This entry was tagged .

Some Thoughts on Jared Kushner and the Anti-Nepotism Law

by Andrew Hessick — Sunday, Nov. 20, 2016@andyhessick

  In the past week, there has been a lot of discussion whether Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of Donald Trump, can serve as an advisor to Trump when he takes office. The concern is that hiring Kushner might violate the anti-nepotism laws. Under 5 U.S.C. § 3110(b), a “public official” cannot “appoint” or “employ” a […]

This entry was tagged .

Expected Strategies for the New Administration

by Andrew Hessick — Monday, Nov. 14, 2016@andyhessick

As the Trump administration prepares to take over, it has revealed some of the policy changes it plans to implement. These include reducing environmental restrictions, amping up enforcement of immigration rules, and deregulating businesses.  Trump’s administration will no doubt want to implement some of these changes faster than would be possible through the notice-and-comment- process.  […]

This entry was tagged .

Auer, Mead, and Sentencing

by Andrew Hessick — Thursday, Sept. 15, 2016@andyhessick

Hear Auer deference, and you’re unlikely to think of criminal law.  After all, Auer deference is a doctrine of administrative law, and administrative law has traditionally been viewed as separate from criminal law.  And it’s true, Auer deference does not often come up in determining whether a substantive criminal violation has occurred. But Auer deference […]