We are pleased to announce that we have extended the duration of this Forum to allow for reactions and responses to both the Solicitor General’s brief (filed on Friday and posted here) and the Respondent’s brief (due November 18), as well as briefs filed by their supporting amici. It is our hope that, as the scope of the argument and the effect of this summer’s appointments compromise become clear, our Web Forum can be a platform for renewed discussion and, with the Supreme Court’s impending consideration of the matter, reinvigorated and influential debate.
It has been an uncommonly eventful summer. From the leaking of details on the NSA’s surveillance programs and subsequent government disclosures to the debate in recent weeks over the proposed use of military force in Syria, there has been no shortage of news to command our attention. These events and the debates they have spurred demonstrate just how pervasive separation-of-powers issues are in both the structure and the operation of our constitutional system. The dynamic and ever critical relationship between the three branches has been on full display in recent months.
Noel Canning is an important case study in these issues. What began as a power struggle between the Executive branch and the Congress now prompts important questions—in the wake of the summer’s compromise on appointments, including to the NLRB—about the role of the Judiciary in resolving such disputes. This case forces us to reflect upon broad and critical inquiries, from the proper balance of federal power to the appropriate mode of constitutional interpretation. I hope that many of you will take the opportunity to do just that. As a starting point, we urge you to consider and comment on these questions, but please feel free to expand or contract your thoughts as you see fit.
We are looking forward to a fruitful discussion.