Presidential Factfinding

Abstract here:

See also last sentence here...

Getting closer and closer to the third paragraph here:

This from the Abrego Garcia case is the sort of thing I highlight in the piece below.

The Admin is using the Court's own language to claim that when something falls in the President's "exclusive" power zone, no one--not even the judiciary--can regulate what POTUS wants to do.

And, to your point, even he exempted inferior officers from his argument that Congress could not impose for-cause protections on executive officers (even though there is no way to square this exception with the broader logic of the dissent).

This incentivizes more findings of "exclusive" presidential power with perpetually expanding scope, leading to broader presidential power at the expense of Congress. And this is precisely what has happened.

I discuss this dynamic here

lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/defaul...

I confess I'm still confused by where the rules of "ordinary law" come from if not higher law. But, even putting it to the side, I still stand by emphasizing the downsides of allowing popular majorities to act without constraint (even if through legislation).

I think it's kind of both. As I read their arg is (1) POTUS has art ii authority to remove (2) Congress has no affirmative authority to change POTUS power

But if flip order ask about branches, get opposite result (1) Congress has auth to structure offices (2) POTUS has no aff auth to change that /1

It argues that SOP Formalism has never come up with a coherent method to resolve disputes that arise in areas of overlapping power between the branches.

This is a major problem because essentially all the disputes that arise today arise in areas of shared authority.