Christine Kexel Chabot
LightNews LightNews
banner
kexelchabot.bsky.social
Christine Kexel Chabot
@kexelchabot.bsky.social
5.3K followers 280 following 170 posts
Professor of Law @ Marquette. Is the administrative state history?
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Christine Kexel Chabot
patsobkowski.com
The Loyola Constitutional Law Colloquium is a gem of a conference. Met some brilliant people for the first time and got to reconnect with old friends.

I also got amazing feedback on my “Presidential Penumbras” project.
November 8, 2025 at 11:57 PM
kexelchabot.bsky.social
Thanks so much for your engagement with my work, Mike and Larry. More TK soon! Mike’s points about “core” executive powers over law enforcement touch on some of my earlier work, so I’ve included a few thoughts below.
November 9, 2025 at 12:07 AM
kexelchabot.bsky.social
Private, uninjured parties have been authorized to sue private and public officials since the Founding. This type of arrangement has never been a constitutional problem. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
November 4, 2025 at 8:04 PM
kexelchabot.bsky.social
Rejecting the Unitary Executive is out in the Utah Law Review! TY @blakeprof.bsky.social @thisyank.bsky.social @jgienapp.bsky.social @andreascoseriakatz.bsky.social @jdmortenson.bsky.social @jedshug.bsky.social
@narosenblum.bsky.social
& many others not on here

dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2025/...
Rejecting the Unitary Executive
Critics have dismissed originalism as an empty methodology. They claim it is incapable of resolving our most important constitutional disputes, including the debate over the unitary executive. While u...
dc.law.utah.edu
October 22, 2025 at 3:21 PM
kexelchabot.bsky.social
When your old, fence-jumping dog provides inspiration for the class discussion of Hoctor v. US Dept. Of Agriculture …
October 20, 2025 at 5:11 PM
kexelchabot.bsky.social
It’s a lucky day when you walk your dog and stumble upon an example of obsolete technology to share with your students in antitrust! (Microsoft, I will also be digging up palm pilot pictures this weekend.)
October 18, 2025 at 3:24 PM
Reposted by Christine Kexel Chabot
kalimurray.bsky.social
Congrats to @narosenblum.bsky.social, @andreascoseriakatz.bsky.social and@janemanners.bsky.social for writing an absolutely vital article on why judges need to take that the early Founding Era wildly varying ideas of executive power.
narosenblum.bsky.social Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · Sep 23
Just in time for the grant in Slaughter, my latest with @andreascoseriakatz.bsky.social and @janemanners.bsky.social out in the @umichlaw.bsky.social Journal of Law Reform!

repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcont...
DISAGREEMENT AND HISTORICAL ARGUMENT OR HOW NOT TO THINK ABOUT REMOVAL Andrea Scoseria Katz, Noah A. Rosenblum, and Jane Manners ABSTRACT Scholars have debated the reach of the President's power to remove government officers for over one hundred years. This old fight is now suddenly urgent as President Trump asserts far-reaching powers to control the federal bureaucracy and the Supreme Court transforms Unitary Executive Theory into caselaw. Yet the scholarly case for an indefeasible presidential removal power has never been weaker. This Essay continues an ongoing conversation about how to read some critical early republic evidence about removal. It briefly recapitulates the stakes of the disagreement before offering in-depth analyses of developments in Pennsylvania removal practice, including a reading of the Council of Censors' Report from 1784. Along the way, it responds to some recent criticisms of our work by Professors Saikrishna Prakash and Aditya Bamzai. The Essay makes two overarching arguments: First, there was no consensus in the early republic that the executive power included an indefeasible power of removal. Second, legal historians must take dissensus seriously. Historical disagreement is a fact that lawyers wishing to make legal meaning out of history need to confront. In this case, it straightforwardly undermines the notion there was a shared understanding in the early republic that the executive power included an indefeasible power of removal.
October 10, 2025 at 4:17 PM
Reposted by Christine Kexel Chabot
blakeprof.bsky.social
Please to share the final, citable version of my latest article, The Existential Challenge to the Administrative State, forthcoming in the Georgetown Law Journal. Written mostly before Trump's second term, the paper critiques and responds to the case law that has enabled the current conflagration.
The Existential Challenge to the Administrative State
<div> A set of constitutional claims today strikes at the heart of the administrative authority of the federal government. Claims regarding administrative poli
papers.ssrn.com
October 7, 2025 at 12:10 AM
Reposted by Christine Kexel Chabot
thegozfather.bsky.social
One of the best parts of the day job is putting on document displays. Today, I got to show off this gorgeous 15th-century illuminated statute book [TNA E 164/10] #LegalRecords
Illuminated manuscript book Cover of a 15th century book Illuminated page from the 15th Century
September 29, 2025 at 10:34 AM
Reposted by Christine Kexel Chabot
narosenblum.bsky.social
Just in time for the grant in Slaughter, my latest with @andreascoseriakatz.bsky.social and @janemanners.bsky.social out in the @umichlaw.bsky.social Journal of Law Reform!

repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcont...
DISAGREEMENT AND HISTORICAL ARGUMENT OR HOW NOT TO THINK ABOUT REMOVAL Andrea Scoseria Katz, Noah A. Rosenblum, and Jane Manners ABSTRACT Scholars have debated the reach of the President's power to remove government officers for over one hundred years. This old fight is now suddenly urgent as President Trump asserts far-reaching powers to control the federal bureaucracy and the Supreme Court transforms Unitary Executive Theory into caselaw. Yet the scholarly case for an indefeasible presidential removal power has never been weaker. This Essay continues an ongoing conversation about how to read some critical early republic evidence about removal. It briefly recapitulates the stakes of the disagreement before offering in-depth analyses of developments in Pennsylvania removal practice, including a reading of the Council of Censors' Report from 1784. Along the way, it responds to some recent criticisms of our work by Professors Saikrishna Prakash and Aditya Bamzai. The Essay makes two overarching arguments: First, there was no consensus in the early republic that the executive power included an indefeasible power of removal. Second, legal historians must take dissensus seriously. Historical disagreement is a fact that lawyers wishing to make legal meaning out of history need to confront. In this case, it straightforwardly undermines the notion there was a shared understanding in the early republic that the executive power included an indefeasible power of removal.
September 23, 2025 at 12:48 PM
kexelchabot.bsky.social
Legal process’s executor
beaubaumann.bsky.social Beau Baumann 🍏 @beaubaumann.bsky.social · Sep 8
I think we should all at least prepare for the absurdist humor of overruling Humphrey’s on the shadow docket. Real 2025 energy.
stevevladeck.bsky.social Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · Sep 8
Chief Justice Roberts has issued an “administrative” stay allowing President Trump to remove the last Democratic member of Federal Trade Commission while the full Court decides whether to freeze lower-court rulings that had held that her firing was unlawful:
September 8, 2025 at 3:19 PM
kexelchabot.bsky.social
Enjoyed appearing on We the People to discuss the Federal Reserve and Sinking Fund Commission! constitutioncenter.org/news-debate/...
Can President Trump Fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook?
Podcast for Can President Trump Fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook? from the National Constitution Center
constitutioncenter.org
September 5, 2025 at 2:00 AM
Reposted by Christine Kexel Chabot
brennancenter.org
BREAKING: Historian Jane Manners filed a brief in Boyle v. Trump, challenging President Trump’s dismissal of three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. 1/ bit.ly/4mKYlN8
August 29, 2025 at 10:43 PM
Reposted by Christine Kexel Chabot
lookheron.bsky.social
Literally the perfect guest. @levmenand.bsky.social is not only a leading historian and theorist of US banking regulation, he rote THE article on the meaning on "for cause" removal.
August 27, 2025 at 1:27 PM
Reposted by Christine Kexel Chabot
martylederman.bsky.social
I don't think so. This removal was for cause--pretextual cause, to be sure, but the Article II argument won't be joined. The broader problem is that he's willing to use pretext in a 1001 different settings to accomplish what would otherwise be unlawful--and everyone knows it, but won't stop it.
August 26, 2025 at 1:52 AM
kexelchabot.bsky.social
Weighing in with some important legal background on President Trump's firing of Lisa Cook:
August 26, 2025 at 12:58 AM
Reposted by Christine Kexel Chabot
thegozfather.bsky.social
I found a cool Shakespeare document, but why was it missing in the first place? www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/news/s... [1/4]
Shakespeare family will found by historian - The National Archives
Red sealing wax seal and string on 1642 parchment will of Thomas Nash
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
August 23, 2025 at 9:28 AM
Reposted by Christine Kexel Chabot
johannneem.bsky.social
3) @kexelchabot.bsky.social takes down the premise of advocates of the unitary executive.
Interring the Unitary Executive | Notre Dame Law Review
View PDF ARTICLE INTERRING THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE Christine Kexel Chabot* The President’s power to remove and control subordinate executive officers has sparked a constitutional debate that began in 17...
ndlawreview.org
August 22, 2025 at 3:36 PM
Reposted by Christine Kexel Chabot
narosenblum.bsky.social
Delighted to share my latest, History and Fetishism in the New Separation of Powers Formalism, now live in the Penn Law Review!

The piece traces the emergence of the Supreme Court’s new approach to separation of powers law and argues that it is grounded in a set of basic mistakes. (1/3)
In the last few years, the Supreme Court has embraced a formalist approach to separation of powers law, allegedly justified by the Constitution's "original meaning." It is revolutionary, rapidly remaking the constitutional law of administration. But the Court's engagement with history is selective and idiosyncratic. In particular, it has largely ignored what we know of governmental practice in the early republic. This Essay attacks the Court's use of history. It uses Jack Balkin's analysis of legal discourse in Memory and Authority to unpack the Court's reliance on historical arguments and to suggest avenues for critique. It draws on recent scholarship on Founding Era practice to show that eighteenth-century understandings of separation of powers were not formalist. And it argues for the restoration of Montesquieu to our constitutional memory. A key figure in the development of the Constitution, Montesquieu's understanding of separation of powers closely tracked early republic practice. He thus points the way towards an alternative interpretation of our constitutional tradition and a more pragmatic and historically accurate structural constitutionalism in place of the Court's growing formalist fetish.
August 9, 2025 at 9:33 PM
Reposted by Christine Kexel Chabot
juliaazari.bsky.social
Got a book you all are going to love, just a few weeks now until it's available press.princeton.edu/books/hardco...
August 6, 2025 at 1:31 PM
Reposted by Christine Kexel Chabot
nicholasbednar.bsky.social
By request, I updated my website with a list of all the essays and podcasts I have done on the civil service. I'll keep it updated as I write and speak.

nbednar.com/civil-servic...
Civil Service
The federal government employs approximately 3 million individuals, making it the largest employer in the United States. Most of these employees enjoy tenure protections under the civil service law…
nbednar.com
August 2, 2025 at 2:01 PM
Reposted by Christine Kexel Chabot
nicholasbednar.bsky.social
The Lloyd-LaFollette Act only permits removal "only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service." "Article II" is not a valid cause.
benjaminpenn.bsky.social Ben Penn @benjaminpenn.bsky.social · Jul 14
UPDATE: DOJ Ethic director Tirrell posts his termination letter on LinkedIn. Says his oath “did not come with the caveat that I need only support the Constitution when it is easy or convenient.”
July 14, 2025 at 2:35 PM
Reposted by Christine Kexel Chabot
tphillips.bsky.social
🚨@nicholasbednar.bsky.social and I have a new article titled Commission Quorums.

In light of firings rendering the NLRB and MSPB quorum-less, we review caselaw, common law principles, and the quorum rules of 76 commissions to understand the law of quorums. 1/

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
July 11, 2025 at 12:04 PM