Elena Chachko
@elenachachko.bsky.social
Law professor @Berkeley Law. Inaugural Rappaport Fellow @Harvard Law. Writing and teaching about law, geopolitics, administration and technology.
Thank you @phverdier.bsky.social @uvalaw.bsky.social Sokol colloquium and @lawprofpuig.bsky.social, Kathleen Claussen & Michael Waibel for a terrific issue.
October 20, 2025 at 10:06 PM
Thank you @phverdier.bsky.social @uvalaw.bsky.social Sokol colloquium and @lawprofpuig.bsky.social, Kathleen Claussen & Michael Waibel for a terrific issue.
October 20, 2025 at 10:03 PM
And yet there are serious precedent-setting effects to consider, as well as implications for European and American assets in other countries—frozen or not. The exigencies of the Ukraine situation should not obscure these concerns.
March 4, 2025 at 5:56 AM
And yet there are serious precedent-setting effects to consider, as well as implications for European and American assets in other countries—frozen or not. The exigencies of the Ukraine situation should not obscure these concerns.
Are we about to see this line in sanctions policy crossed? Would not be a surprise in the wake of the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting. Transferring frozen assets in the Ukraine case could strike many as an instance of “unlawful but legitimate”.
March 4, 2025 at 5:56 AM
Are we about to see this line in sanctions policy crossed? Would not be a surprise in the wake of the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting. Transferring frozen assets in the Ukraine case could strike many as an instance of “unlawful but legitimate”.
Under international law, sanctions are supposed to be temporary and reversible. That’s why the assets are frozen, not permanently seized. Issues arise under U.S. law too. So far sanctioning countries agreed to let Ukraine take out a loan against proceeds from the seized assets but not the principal.
March 4, 2025 at 5:56 AM
Under international law, sanctions are supposed to be temporary and reversible. That’s why the assets are frozen, not permanently seized. Issues arise under U.S. law too. So far sanctioning countries agreed to let Ukraine take out a loan against proceeds from the seized assets but not the principal.
One could parse this language but it sure reads like a full throated endorsement of a theory of executive power in foreign affairs that the Supreme Court has rejected, most recently in Zivotofsky II.
February 13, 2025 at 9:34 PM
One could parse this language but it sure reads like a full throated endorsement of a theory of executive power in foreign affairs that the Supreme Court has rejected, most recently in Zivotofsky II.
From the EO: “Article II of the United States Constitution vests the power to conduct foreign policy in the President of the United States.”
February 13, 2025 at 9:34 PM
From the EO: “Article II of the United States Constitution vests the power to conduct foreign policy in the President of the United States.”
or is necessary for any reason to protect the revenue or to prevent unlawful importations." It is questionable whether the EOs properly exercised that waiver.
February 5, 2025 at 8:33 PM
or is necessary for any reason to protect the revenue or to prevent unlawful importations." It is questionable whether the EOs properly exercised that waiver.
Section 321 does provide for a waiver. "The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized by regulations to prescribe exceptions to any exemption ... whenever he finds that such action is consistent with the purpose of subsection (a)...
February 5, 2025 at 8:33 PM
Section 321 does provide for a waiver. "The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized by regulations to prescribe exceptions to any exemption ... whenever he finds that such action is consistent with the purpose of subsection (a)...
Trump eliminated it anyway based on IEEPA, potentially setting up a conflict between the President and congressional statute (aka Youngstown category III).
February 5, 2025 at 8:33 PM
Trump eliminated it anyway based on IEEPA, potentially setting up a conflict between the President and congressional statute (aka Youngstown category III).