25 S. Charles St., Suite 1400
Baltimore, MD 21201
- Ilya Shapiro - Senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review
Join us on Thursday, July 13 as Miguel A. Estrada of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP delivers the Annual Supreme Court Round Up at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The cost for this event is $50 for members and $75 for non-members. [Register now!]
What kind of war power does the Constitution grant the President and Congress? What limitations apply to each branch concerning the power to declare war and the use of military force? Over time, how has the Framers’ understanding been followed and in what ways has it been ignored? Do the founding principles regarding these topics still have application to our modern era? Join us for an insightful discussion with Former Congressman Mickey Edwards and National Review Institute Senior Fellow Andrew C. McCarthy.
Regulations intended to address public health and environmental risks depend heavily on scientific information. Yet, they are often the subject of heated debate, involving accusations of “politicized science,” “advocacy science,” and “junk science.” Susan Dudley will discuss her forthcoming paper with Marcus Peacock that explores the motivations and institutional incentives that have led to this acrimony. The paper illustrates the problem with a case study of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards issued under the Clean Air Act, and offers recommendations for improving how science is used to inform regulatory policy.
On Monday, June 26, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and stay applications were granted in part. The case is based on the January 21 Executive Order No. 13780, “Protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” The order suspended immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the country by citizens of seven majority Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days. It also suspended refugee admission into the United States for 120 days, and barred entry of Syrian refugees until further notice. The stated order’s purpose was to “ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.”
The Washington State Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the order in District Court citing harm to Seattle residents. Judge James Robart in the Western District of Washington issued a restraining order on February 3 halting President Trump’s executive order nationwide. The Department of Justice appealed the restraining order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected the Justice Department’s appeal for an emergency stay.
Three International & National Security Law experts joined us for a great discussion on what the Supreme Court’s actions mean for the current application of the EO and a preview of the case before the Court.