I have made three recent LinkedIn posts that you may wish to look at and if possible like and repost:
- Our Rule of Law and FTC commissioner Dismissal post in general and on the YLS network that some of you can reach. This presents two neutral discussions of the arguments on both sides, including one from the YLS Rule of Law Clinic.
- Our Rule of Law and FTC commissioner Dismissal II post in general and on the YLS network that some of you can reach. This rejects the principal originalist argument in favor the President having the authority to fire members of multi-member commissions, such as the FTC, at will. The author and the author’s research is cited by the dissent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for DC decision that is later cited in this email
- The NYCLA report entitled The Administration’s Handling of Federal Food Safety Net Again Threatens Key Constitutional Rights, in general, on the YLS network that some of you can reach, and on the NYCLA LinkedIn site that is generally accessible. I was the principal draftsperson and the statement observes that the President has an obligation to act in good faith which if recognized will help curtail his authority.
You may wish to look at the following videos/audios
- November 21, 2025 ABA Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice program entitled, Foundations of Freedom: Exploring the U.S. Constitution | How Things Work: The Legal Edition. This is good for a civics lecture to non-lawyers. Join retired Judge Eileen Nadelson as she presents an overview of the United States Constitution, tracing its development from the country’s gradual independence to its establishment as the world’s first written constitution by the people. Hon. Nadelson explains the constitutional framework, including the three branches of government and their respective powers, while discussing how executive orders and judicial decisions interact within the system. The presentation concludes with an examination of the Bill of Rights, emphasizing its protection of individual liberties and the importance of citizen understanding and participation in governance. A replay is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m-4VlEzJgE&t=2s
- December 4, 2025, Heather Cox Richardson Program entitled, This Week in Politics.| Explainer. Prof. Richarson argues we are in the final stages of a 40-year struggle to slide away from democracy and the two important things we can do is speak out in favor of the values we wish to preserve and encourage legislators for protect those values. A replay is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPKtdmDxxNM
- December 5, 2025, MS Now, ‘As a former Secretary of Defense, I’m very concerned’: Panetta reacts to boat strikes. Lawmakers are divided after seeing video of the Sept. 2 strikes on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta joins Katy Tur to share his reaction, saying “there is a serious absence of leadership” and adding “I’m angry because this involves the lives of our men and women in uniform.” A replay is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6VSxsoFeCg
- December 5, 2025 POBS Newshour segment entitled, RFK-appointed CDC panel drops hepatitis B vaccine at birth recommendation. Even though the recommendation permits mothers to decide with their doctors to get the vaccine immediately after birth and major medical groups recommend continuing use at birth, the fact that vaccines will not be the rule will mean that many will not be vaccinated, which will have the adverse effects described. A replay and transcript are available at https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/rfk-appointed-cdc-panel-drops-hepatitis-b-vaccine-at-birth-recommendation
You may wish to look at the following recent litigation documents:
- December 5, 2025 opinion in Harriss v. Bessent (No. 25-5037), with dissenting opinion by United States Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit reversing decision below and permitting the President to removing members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board without cause. The difference is set forth in two paragraphs;
- Majority: But under Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), Congress may not restrict the President’s ability to remove principal officers who wield substantial executive power. As explained below, the NLRB and MSPB wield substantial powers that are both executive in nature and different from the powers that Humphrey’s Executor deemed to be merely quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial. So, Congress cannot restrict the President’s ability to remove NLRB or MSPB members.
- Dissent: Our starting point is the Supreme Court’s recognition of an exception to the President’s at-will removal authority for “multimember expert agencies that do not wield substantial executive power.” Seila Law, 591 U.S. at 218. To overrule that precedent so that the President may seize total control over all independent agencies, the government must argue that the current exception is impermissible because the Constitution compels the President’s complete domination of the Executive Branch. But the government’s position is logically flawed: While arguing for total presidential control in sweeping terms, the government nonetheless concedes that it may be appropriate to carve out exceptions for the Federal Reserve and Article I courts (which are situated within the Executive Branch). In other words, the government argues for no exceptions while conceding that exceptions are allowed. If the
- Constitution permits Congress to impose for-cause removal restrictions to protect the independence of Federal Reserve officials and Article I judges, there is no logical way to hold that the Constitution nevertheless forbids Congress from protecting the leaders of other government entities that have similar needs for independence (i.e., because they also are impartial adjudicators or have a historical tradition of political independence)
You may also wish to consider the following items:
- December 2, 2025 The Cross Section podcast by Paul Waldman entitled, A Few Bad Men. Two of the key paragraphs are
- This administration is offering a daily instruction in what happens when you take the most morally despicable people in the country and give them power (and I haven’t even mentioned Stephen Miller, the guiding hand behind Trump’s domestic policy, who probably grew up torturing small animals). Unfortunately, there is clearly a market for the sadism they embody; millions of people delight in watching Trump punch down on their behalf. It won’t give them economic opportunity or secure health care or a good education for their kids, but in a chaotic world where injustice is rampant, watching those you hate suffer is at least something.
- But we can draw some hope from the fact that the political power of sadism seems limited. The vast majority of successful politicians throughout our history labored to convince us that they were compassionate, restrained, and morally admirable (even when they weren’t). Most of us don’t actually want our presidents and those who work for them to be motivated by malevolent cruelty.
- December 4, 2025 NYT report by Albert Sun entitled, Most Immigrants Arrested in City Crackdowns Have No Criminal Record. The key paragraph is
- Less than 30 percent of the people arrested in any of these operations had been convicted of a crime, an analysis of the data shows, and a very small share had been convicted of a violent crime. The most common non-violent convictions were for driving under the influence and other traffic offenses.
- December 4, 2025 Atlantic column by Adam Serwer entitled, Why Doesn’t Trump Pay a Political Price for His Racism?. Robert Frank brought this to my attention. One of the key paragraphs is the final one that reminds us who is responsible for Trump
- There is a difference between inheritance and action. I cannot help who my ancestors are, but I can make my own choices. That so many Americans chose to place in power a man who holds people in contempt on the basis of race, religion, and national origin; that so much of the mainstream media conveys this bigotry through tired, obfuscating euphemisms; that there is so low a political price for the president’s racism that he and those around him see little risk in its expression—well, that does say something about America, and Americans. Immigration isn’t breaking our society. That’s a job Americans can do on their own.