Edward A Hartnett
hartneed at shu.edu
Tue Sep 23 08:41:29 PDT 2008
I have very serious doubts about the wisdom and justice of Paulson's plan.
But as for constitutionality, a famous judge in a famous case once wrote:
"The province of the court is . . . not to inquire how the executive,or
executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion.
Questions . . . which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the
executive, can never be made in this court."
Edward A. Hartnett
Richard J. Hughes Professor
for Constitutional and Public Law and Service
Seton Hall University School of Law
One Newark Center
Newark, NJ 07102-5210
hartneed at shu.edu
SSRN author page: http://ssrn.com/author=253335
<stevenjamar at gmai
Sent by: CONLAWPROFS
conlawprof-bounce <Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>
s at lists.ucla.edu cc
09/23/2008 11:30 Re: section 8
I would need to think about it quite a bit more, but I think this sort of
provision may indeed be constitutional unless a constitutional right is at
stake. That is, if it is indeed just an executive action on enforcement of
a statutory right, and if Congress says it is a discretionary action by the
agency or secretary, then it seems to me to be a delegation problem, not a
jurisdiction problem. And if the delegation has appropriate standards, it
seems that the discretionary exercise of that lawful delegation cannot be
challenged in court -- unless, again, the action is (a) ultra vires, or (b)
stomping on some constitutional right.
But, as I said, this is just a first, quick impression. I'd need to work
it out a bit more. I don't think the detainee cases should be read for the
proposition that Congress cannot ever keep certain things out of the courts
through limiting jurisdiction.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Howard Schweber <schweber at polisci.wisc.edu
Section 8 of Secretary Paulson's proposed bailout contains the following
provision: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of
this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may
not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
Given the rulings in the detainee cases, I have been operating on the
assumption that this provision has approximately the same chance of
surviving Supreme Court review as I have of being elected Homecoming
Does anyone disagree?
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
More information about the Conlawprof