Giving the FBI Director a statutory for-cause limit on removal might codify in law a level of independence that past directors have previously enjoyed.
Andrew Kent is Professor of Law at Fordham University School of Law. He teaches and writes about constitutional law, foreign relations law, federal courts and procedure, national security law, public international law and professional responsibility.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
Following President Trump's detonation of the checks and balances that previously maintained law enforcement independence, it is worth revisiting post-Watergate congressional proposals to give greater independence to the FBI.
The Supreme Court's decision to vacate and remand the cross-border shooting case to the Fifth Circuit avoided the Fourth Amendment question at issue and focused instead on the availability of a Bivens remedy.
Questions have arisen about the applicable ethics rules that govern Kasowitz’s representation of Trump, and whether any of those rules may have been violated. Below I sketch the governing ethics framework and address some questions raised by the conduct reported to date.
The Fourth Circuit's curious citation of Ex parte Milligan in the travel ban case is a reflection of a kind of judicial supremacy and constitutional universalism that is very attractive today among left-leaning lawyers, judges, and legal academics—but that's not what Milligan says.
There are a lot of unanswered questions about the probe new special counsel Robert Mueller will lead into the Trump-Russia issues. I want to offer some thoughts on two questions that are already being raised: what is Mueller’s jurisdiction, and will the public learn what he uncovers?
It turns out that, at least in part, Congress created the ten-year term for FBI director "as a cautionary message to the President."