Unitary executive theory
Interpretation of the US Constitution regarding presidential power
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The unitary executive theory is a theory of United States constitutional law holding that the president, as head of the federal government's executive branch, must retain sole authority over executive administration and officials,[1] structurally centralizing control within a unified hierarchy. Weaker formulations are less controversial than maximalist versions, which face constitutional and practical criticism.[2][3] During the Reagan era, conservative organizations, including the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, and some Supreme Court justices, most notably Antonin Scalia, began favoring the theory.[4][5][6][7][8]
The Constitution, Article I, including the Necessary and Proper Clause, authorizes Congress to enact statutes, some of which create offices and structure the administrative state, while Article II vests executive power in the president. The scale and complexity of enforcement have created a professionalized administrative bureaucracy. Proponents of the unitary executive theory say the Executive Vesting Clause and Take Care Clause unify the executive branch, rendering some statutory restrictions unconstitutional and leaving broad authority over officials, including removal, to the president.[9][10][3]
This broad authority extends to discretion in implementing laws, including influence over federal agencies' rulemaking and administrative discretion, as well as to executive privilege and information access more generally.[3] Most presidents seek broader authority to achieve their goals,[11] and the Reagan administration first cited the theory[12] as a doctrinal justification associated with continuing deregulation. During the George W. Bush administration, the theory entered public discourse in connection with expansive assertions of executive authority in national security and administrative law. The Trump administration has used it to assert extensive presidential control over executive branch administration.
Critics challenge the theory and its constitutional basis,[13][14][15] noting that most democracies better insulate institutions from the chief executive.[16][17][18] They warn that it may weaken political accountability,[19] and cite democratic backsliding in countries where executive authority is consolidated.[3][20][21][22] In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), the Roberts Court wrote that "Article II vests the entire 'executive Power' in the President alone [and] generally includes the power to ... remove".[23][24] The extent of this power remains contested and is shaped by constitutional checks and balances, statute, and judicial precedent, including cases such as Wiener v. United States (1958).
Background
The theory originated in conservative legal circles like the Federalist Society,[11] and the term dates to the Reagan administration.[25][26][27][28] Rigorous academic inquiry into it has been dominated by legal scholars like Reagan Justice Department attorney Steven Calabresi, the self-described "father of the unitary executive".[29] Proponents of a maximalist and unchecked unitary executive have made textualist[30] and historical arguments defending their version of the theory, sparking debate about the structure of presidential power.[31]
During the Presidency of George W. Bush, the theory gained prominence in media coverage of controversies involving the commander-in-chief power.[32] Presidential exercise of wartime emergency power[33] has rarely been checked by other branches of the government; once an emergency has been declared, even a perceived threat may be used to justify extraordinary exercises of executive power.[34][35][36]
Many scholars have disputed the theory's textual and historical foundations,[37][38][39][40] warning that it concentrates power in ways associated with autocracy[41][11][42][19] and is liable to authoritarian abuses of power and discretion.[22] Its treatment of criminal prosecution as a core executive function may risk the Justice Department's anti-corruption efforts and norms of prosecutorial discretion.[43] While perhaps suitable for the more limited federal government of the early republic, critics say the unitary model is unrealistic in the era of modern administration.[19] Most modern democracies do not concentrate executive power in the manner proposed by maximalist versions of the theory, which maintain that the Constitution requires the president alone to supervise and control a unified executive branch.[44][45]
Formulations
The theory admits multiple interpretations, with scholars distinguishing stronger and weaker formulations.[46] Some scholars distinguish a "strong" version of the unitary executive theory, under which the Article II Vesting Clause gives the President authority to direct and remove executive subordinates while also recognizing broad implied constitutional powers to act without statutory authorization. Other scholars who accept the structural arguments for presidential control over executive officers nevertheless reject claims of independent presidential power that would encroach on Congress's legislative authority.[47] The extent to which the president possesses such powers was left unresolved by the tripartite framework set out by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer.[48][49]
Another approach more broadly approves of statutory protections for independent agencies and often justifies theoretical limits on presidential control on functionalist grounds, such as promoting transparency, public deliberation, and independent administrative decision-making.[47]
Commentators have identified two questions as central to the future development of the unitary executive theory: how far presidential control extends within the executive branch, and who qualifies as an "officer" under Article II. The Roberts Court has generally emphasized constitutional text, structure, and historical practice, rather than functional balancing or deference to Congress. Several judges appointed by Donald Trump—Jennifer Mascott, Neomi Rao, and Justin Walker—have endorsed a stronger version of the theory, similar to the approach associated with Antonin Scalia.[50][51]
In practice, independent agencies operated with substantial independence from presidential oversight for decades, despite the strong versions of unitary executive theory that called for greater presidential control. In 2026, Executive Order 14215 sought to bring them under closer presidential supervision and later that year the Supreme Court decision Trump v. Slaughter substantially expanded presidential authority over those agencies.[52]
Analysis
The complexity of American government, shaped by federalism, separation of powers, overlapping jurisdictions, and administrative institutions, has created diffuse responsibility and uncertainty.[53] The administrative state is sometimes called the fourth branch of government, and since it began, the dominant legal debate has been how the three formal branches control it.[45] In historical practice, there has been a complex, contested relationship among the president, administrators, and Congress,[54] with Congress adopting key Brownlow Committee reforms expanding presidential administrative authority in 1937.[55] Separation-of-powers disputes have arisen over functionally quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative bodies (and, under the Presentment Clause, over forms of the president's veto power, a check on legislative power).[14] Commentators have speculated that the President's expanded removal authority following the Slaughter decision may prompt renewed scrutiny of which governmental functions are properly understood as executive in nature.[56]
Unitary executive theory presents a clear account of presidential authority, arguing that the president's duty to ensure the faithful execution of the laws includes the power to direct and remove policy-making subordinates throughout the executive branch. Scholars of the presidency have long observed that the modern president serves as an important cognitive aid for Americans, and the unitary executive theory reinforces this perception by offering a coherent framework that emphasizes a single, nationally elected president's role in directing executive governance. It portrays the president as uniquely accountable to the national electorate and therefore possessing a special claim to authority in executive governance. The theory draws support from claims about constitutional text, founding-era practice, and historical tradition, contributing to its rise from a contested constitutional theory into a prominent account of the modern presidency.[57][53]
Many have criticized the theory and its constitutional basis,[13][58] warning that it concentrates power in the executive[11][59][19] in unintended or unforeseen, impractical ways.[19][45] Former White House Counsel John Dean said: "In its most extreme form, unitary executive theory can mean that neither Congress nor the federal courts can tell the President what to do or how to do it, particularly regarding national security matters."[60]
Constitutional text
Article I, Legislative power of the United States
Necessary and Proper Clause
Congress has several enumerated powers and the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution all Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof". Provided that those laws are constitutional, it is the President who is responsible "for carrying into Execution" the vested powers of the government.[61][62]
Congress's authority to compel production of documents and testimony derives from its legislative power under Article I. The Supreme Court firmly rejected the argument that Congress lacked authority to compel documents and testimony in McGrain v. Daugherty (1927).[63]
Political historian Julian E. Zelizer agrees with conservative thinker James Burnham that "[l]egislative supremacy was ... a starting assumption", and that "the primacy of the legislature in the intent of the Constitution is plain on the face of the document".[64] William Van Alstyne argues that giving fuller effect to the Necessary and Proper Clause would have little practical impact unless the Supreme Court also reconsidered the broader doctrines it has used to expand executive power, including construing executive powers broadly, treating implied powers as indispensable to enumerated powers, and inferring congressional authorization from legislative acquiescence, as in United States v. Midwest Oil Co..[65]
Appointments Clause
Congress creates and structures federal offices and, under the Appointments Clause, methods of federal officials' appointment. While traditionally interpreted to mean "removal", some scholars say this meant only replacing an appointee.[66][67][68] Those who advance the theory often do so when arguing for more presidential power in hiring and firing members of the executive branch, including historically independent administrative law judges,[69] prosecutors (like special counsels),[70][71] inspectors general,[71] the civil service,[72] and commissions on topics like elections and communications.[73]
Lessig and Sunstein agree that Congress was given discretion to structure the government,[74] calling the idea that the framers wanted a completely strong unitary executive "just plain myth".[46][75]
War Powers Clause
Congress's enumerated powers include the duty to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." Contrary to what some supporters of the theory believe, Crouch, Rozell, and Sollenberger say that most scholars think the War Powers Clause denies presidents the power to declare war.[76] During the ratification campaign, Hamilton contrasted presidential powers and those of the king, whose military powers the Constitution gave to Congress.[77] Eric Nelson wrote that some Founders wanted more checks on the executive because, unlike a hereditary monarch's, the president's well-being was not intrinsically tied to the nation's.[78]
Article II, "The executive Power"
Executive Vesting Clause
The Executive Vesting Clause reads, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Proponents of a broad reading of the Executive Vesting Clause interpret the Necessary and Proper Clause as constrained by the Executive Vesting Clause rather than vice versa.[79] In Morrison v. Olson (1988), Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that vesting "the" executive power "does not mean some of the executive power, but all of it".[80] Victoria Nourse says this "pragmatic enrichment" adds the word "all" to the constitutional text; David Froomkin calls it the "unitarian inference".[81] Justice Robert H. Jackson's concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) likewise objected to Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson's dissent interpreting this text as "the whole of the executive power".[82]
Take Care Clause or Faithful Execution Clause
Some scholars have argued that the president's constitutional duty to ensure the faithful execution of the laws carries a broader responsibility to supervise the implementation of multiple statutes simultaneously. Echoing Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson's observation that the president, unlike an administrative agency, is "charged with taking care that a 'mass of legislation' be executed", they argue that the president is uniquely positioned to coordinate policy across executive departments and independent agencies where statutory authority is fragmented.[83]
Calabresi and Christopher Yoo say the Take Care Clause ("The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"), together with the Executive Vesting Clause, creates a "hierarchical, unified executive department" under the president's direct control[84] that ensures consistent execution "in accordance with the president's wishes".[85] This version of the theory says the president must be able to control subordinate officers and agencies under the Take Care Clause,[86] stressing that it is the President's constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", and arguably his "alone".[87]
Critics say the president's constitutional role is to faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress, not to exercise broad supervisory control over agency policy-making, beyond what is necessary to carry out the law.[88][89][90] On this view, broad delegations of discretionary authority shift excessive policy-making power to the president, despite Congress's primary responsibility for setting policy through legislation.[91][92]
Commander-in-Chief (military) and Opinion Clauses
Legal scholars David J. Barron and Marty Lederman find a compelling case for a unitary executive within the armed forces as the commander in chief.[93] But echoing Jackson's Youngstown concurrence,[94] they say the Commander-in-Chief Clause would be redundant if the Executive Vesting Clause already created a unitary executive, implying that the president lacks comparable authority over the civil service.[15]
Critics also cite the Opinion Clause, which permits the president to require written opinions from federal executive departments' principal officers. This would be superfluous, they say, if the president already had unitary executive power.[62]
Presidential signing statements
Presidential signing statements are issued when the president signs legislation into law and explain the executive branch's interpretation of the statute. Since the Reagan administration, presidents have also used signing statements to create a form of alternative legislative history. In 1986, Attorney General Edwin Meese announced that presidential signing statements would be included in legislative history materials published by West Publishing "to make sure that the President's own understanding of what's in a bill [...] is given consideration at the time of statutory construction later on by a court".[95]
Reagan's signing statements also addressed constitutional questions about the separation of powers. In a signing statement accompanying legislation establishing the DOJ Office of Inspector General, he took the view that the legislation's requirement that the Inspector General report to Congress conflicted with the president's authority under the Take Care Clause to supervise executive officials because it compromised the confidentiality of executive branch deliberations.[96]
Presidential signing statements became a central feature of the George W. Bush administration's expansive view of the unitary executive. The American Bar Association Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine concluded that the administration's use of signing statements threatened the constitutional system of checks and balances.[97] The administration took the position that Congress could not vest "final" or "exclusive" decision-making authority in subordinate officials in a manner inconsistent with the president's constitutional authority "to supervise the unitary executive."[98] Critics objected that the administration's theory of presidential power, which claimed a sweeping authority to override statutes based on the President's own constitutional interpretations, seemed to place the President above the law and undermined the separation of powers.[99][97]
Judicial precedent
Myers v. United States (1926) has become a leading precedent for the unitary executive theory. In the decision, the Taft Court held that requiring Senate consent for removals would impermissibly interfere with the President's ability to faithfully execute the laws by forcing him to retain subordinate officers whose loyalty or policy views conflicted with his administration.[100] Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued at length that, from the First Congress through the American Civil War, all three branches had acquiesced in broad presidential removal authority, treating this practice as a form of "historical gloss" on the Constitution's meaning.[101]
In Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), the Hughes Court unanimously held that Congress could create an agency intended to operate independently of direct presidential control, and in doing so limited the application of Myers v. United States to purely executive officers:[102]
[T]he language of the [FTC] act, the legislative reports, and the general purposes of the legislation as reflected by the debates all combine to demonstrate the Congressional intent to create a body of experts who shall gain experience by length of service — a body which shall be independent of executive authority except in its selection, and free to exercise its judgment without the leave or hindrance of any other official or any department of the government.
The Supreme Court signaled its openness to broad separation-of-powers arguments in INS v. Chadha (1983).[103][104] In Bowsher v. Synar (1986), the Rehnquist Court held that Congress cannot check the executive by placing executive functions in officials subject to congressional removal. In 1987, Assistant Attorney General John R. Bolton testified before Congress that the Ethics in Government Act's independent counsel provisions were unconstitutional, prefiguring the government's argument in Morrison v. Olson (1988).[105][106] Chief Justice William Rehnquist held in Morrison that the government's unitary executive argument was "more than the text will bear."[107]: 630–632
History
Practically, reconciling robust national leadership with the Constitution has been a problem from the start.[108] The nature of presidential power has remained contested because the Constitution does not precisely define the office, allowing both individual presidents and changing historical circumstances to shape its practical authority. At the same time, there is broad agreement that the Framers adopted Article II to create a stronger executive than had existed under the Articles of Confederation.[109] The expansion of presidential responsibilities has been accompanied by debates over the appropriate scope of presidential influence on federal regulatory policy, with critics warning that excessive control over administrative agencies could contribute to an "imperial presidency".[110]
When William Smith warned in 1789 that unfettered executive discretion would "remove the most worthy men from office" and deter exemplary candidates from accepting public office, James Madison replied: "[I]f anything in its nature is executive, it must be that power which is employed in superintending and seeing that the laws are faithfully executed."[111] The unitary executive has been called a "theory in search of a proof", especially of a historical and practical nature.[112]
Early government
Legal scholar Christine Chabot says the unitary executive was absent from the 1st United States Congress (1789–91), citing 71 sets of statutory provisions inconsistent with the theory's strong forms.[113] Concerning independent entities like the Federal Reserve and its open market committee, Chabot and Eliga Gould cite the early Sinking Fund Commission, some of whose members (the senate president and chief justice) were immune to presidential removal.[114][115] But statutory provisions allowed presidential removal of most commissioners, and security purchases required presidential approval.[114]
In the Decision of 1789, Representative James Madison successfully argued for presidential removal power, saying that "appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws" is inherently executive, while proposing to exempt a role he saw as partly judicial, the comptroller of the Treasury. He withdrew this proposal when Theodore Sedgwick, Michael Jenifer Stone, and Egbert Benson said the role was mostly executive.[66][116][117] Although Hamilton appears to have acquiesced to the Decision of 1789, his pre-ratification essay Federalist No. 77 connected the qualified Appointment power to the Convention's emphasis on stability: "one of the advantages to be expected from the co-operation of the Senate, in the business of appointments, [was] that it would contribute to the stability of the administration."[118] Constitution Annotated notes that legal scholars and historians continue to disagree about the significance of Federalist No. 77.[119]
For stability, the Electoral College, in its original form, sought to insulate presidential selection from partisan politics through electors, with the House of Representatives choosing if no candidate prevailed. Selection was politicized through the First Party System and Jacksonian democracy. President Andrew Jackson's Bank War, including his dismissal of Treasury secretaries, was an early contested claim of presidential control over executive administration.[120][121] During the Second Party System, party networks filled public administration (a spoils system) and limited presidential independence as party control expanded.[122]
Modern government
Progressive civil service reforms replaced this with a professional bureaucracy and expanded presidential leadership.[122] As the administrative state grew during the New Deal[a] and Great Society, presidents of both parties continued issuing presidential directives with sometimes more and sometimes less unilateralism,[124][125] rarely ceding powers exercised by their predecessors.[27] After President Richard Nixon's failed "administrative presidency", presidents systematically tried to gain more control of the federal bureaucracy, and the legal debate began to center on oversight mechanisms.[126][127]
The Reagan administration's agenda of continuing deregulation[128] was resisted by the iron triangle of advocacy groups, bureaucrats, and Congress,[129] but the administration asserted a broad reading of Myers v. United States as a basis for expanded presidential control over regulatory agencies[129][124]—while using the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to block regulations and filling 5,000 new positions created by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 with loyalists (per the Mandate for Leadership).[3]
The Reagan administration had largely reshaped the federal bureaucracy through conservative appointments by the late 1980s.[3][130] Two obstacles remained: independent agencies that operated outside direct presidential control, and divided government, where Congress could block presidential priorities. Strong unitary executive theory emerged as a conservative constitutional strategy to restore presidential control over the bureaucracy by arguing that the Constitution itself limits Congress's ability either to create bodies that exercise executive power without presidential control or to establish independent centers of executive authority.[131]
The administration attacked independent agencies on two fronts: by reviving the nondelegation doctrine to stop Congress from handing agencies broad, unaccountable regulatory power, and by insisting prosecution was a core executive function that must remain under presidential control.[132] To that end, the administration revived a separation-of-powers formalism spearheaded by Attorney General Edwin Meese, who was himself criminally investigated by a court-appointed independent counsel.[27][28] Many unitary executive theory proponents clerked for Justice Scalia, who had written an influential dissenting opinion favoring broad presidential removal power in 1988.[16][133] Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, his staff, and his successor William Barr embraced Scalia's opinion.[134]
Interest in the theory rose in the 1990s due to Supreme Court rulings on executive power and the Clinton administration's continuation of Reagan and George H. W. Bush policies favoring centralized control, including review of agency rulemaking.[135] In 2001, legal scholar Elena Kagan observed that modern presidents increasingly direct executive agencies to advance their policy agendas. She described this "new presidentialization of administration" as generally lawful and contended that it could improve democratic accountability, transparency, and effective governance.[136] She argued that this could counter bureaucratic inertia and ossification, envisioning "an inevitably pluralist system" of institutional forces constraining the "too facile assertion of unilateral power".[137] (In 2024, her account was dubbed a "Whig history" for its "selectiv[ity] and irenic[ism]".)[138]
The George W. Bush administration, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, championed unitary executive theory,[139] making it a political issue.[140] From 2001, Cheney, his lawyer David Addington, Office of Legal Counsel official John Yoo, and Justice Scalia brought the theory to the forefront of executive power debates. Its application influenced the war on terror, including mass surveillance in the United States, the Iraq War, and torture ("enhanced interrogation techniques") at sites like the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and Abu Ghraib prison.[141] Barack Obama campaigned against the theory but, as president, embraced some aspects after the 2010 midterm elections.[3]
Ongoing developments
Since 2017
Trump exerted more control over the executive than any modern president, citing Article II in 2019, "where I have the right to do whatever I want as president."[12][27][2] Before his confirmation as attorney general, Bill Barr supported the theory in a 2018 memo criticizing the Mueller special counsel investigation.[142][143]
By 2018, five justices on the Supreme Court had been executive branch lawyers from the Reagan and Bush eras focused on expanding presidential power.[144] In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), the Roberts Court held 5–4 that the Executive Vesting Clause gives "the entire 'executive Power' ... to the President alone". The dissent said the constitutional text does not say "entire 'executive power'" or "anything about the President's power to remove subordinate officials at will".[145][146]
This precedent guided Collins v. Yellen (2021), a 7−2 ruling[147][148][146] where Alito wrote the Constitution prohibits even "modest restrictions" on the president's removing single-officer agency heads. The Court reaffirmed that precedents found in Humphrey's Executor and Morrison were the only exceptions to this removal power.[149]
The New York Times and The Guardian reported that Project 2025 sought to establish a framework for expanding presidential power during the second Trump administration based on a maximalist and "contested" version of the unitary executive theory.[150][12] The BBC called Project 2025's application of the theory to independent agencies "controversial".[151] Robert Shea, a former OMB official in the George W. Bush administration, told The Atlantic: "I can't overstate my level of concern about the damage this would do to the institution of the federal government."[152]
Trump v. United States (2024), viewed by some as embracing the theory, further empowered the presidency.[153][154]
Since 2025
Trump's second term expanded control over agencies and the civil service.[156][157] He ordered the targeting of political opponents and civil society.[158][159] He undertook mass firings of employees, inspectors general, and independent agency and oversight board members who might obstruct him.
Legal analysts said these actions set up Supreme Court tests on agencies Congress insulated from presidential control.[144] The Court subsequently ruled in favor of the administration and an expansive view of presidential power.[160]
Under the theory, the administration says the Constitution grants it a right to control or cease law enforcement, which legal experts called a "constitutional power to immunize private parties to commit otherwise illegal acts with impunity".[161] In February 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi warned career Justice Department lawyers they could not "substitute personal political views or judgments for those that prevailed in the election" and could face discipline if they failed to vigorously defend the administration's policies.[162] Emil Bove sent a similar letter to Danielle Sassoon, triggering a wave of resignations as each federal prosecutor instructed to seek dismissal of the Eric Adams indictment refused to do so. According to Michael C. Dorf, the administration's stance reflected its expansive view of presidential power.[163]
Trump and his subordinates are seen as embracing an extreme version of the theory, under which[164][165] the administration pursued a revived impoundment power, with Russell Vought and Mark Paoletta citing Article II's Executive Vesting, Faithful Execution, and Commander-in-Chief Clauses as authorizing executive power to decline spending congressionally appropriated funds and as undermining the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Impoundment has not been a central feature of the unitary executive, but the administration has tried to extend the theory outward to override this explicit legislative act constraining how the executive interacts with Congress's constitutional power.[166] Though the Supreme Court has not ruled on the extent of the president's constitutional authority, if any, to impound funds,[167] Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh previously wrote against impoundment,[168][169] and in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd. (2024), the Court wrote, "our Constitution gives Congress control over the public fisc" under the Appropriations Clause.[170]
In March 2025, the D.C. Circuit held that the president could remove members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board, finding removal restrictions unconstitutional.[171] The theory's impact on federal administration raised concerns over loss of federal expertise.[172]
After stressing the First and Second Bank of the United States as historical precedents to the Federal Reserve,[173] the Court decided Trump v. Cook (2026).
States' plural executives
A plural executive was rejected by the Framers at the Constitutional Convention, where the Virginia Plan's single president, rather than the New Jersey Plan's executive council, prevailed to create "unity in the executive".[174][175][176] Many early state constitutions diffused executive authority by requiring governors to act with elected executive councils rather than independently. Reflecting a long history of distrust of unilateral executive action, governors were largely confined to executing legislative policy and not given any prerogative powers like the veto or control over appointments. The gradual strengthening of state executives was influenced by leaders including John Jay, Gouverneur Morris, James Duane, Robert R. Livingston, and John Adams, whose wartime experience highlighted the need for more effective executive government. Even so, anti-monarchical sentiment remained strong, and many Americans continued to favor executive councils and other institutional restraints over vesting executive authority in a single person, reflecting an understanding of separation of powers that emphasized limiting executive power rather than maintaining equal branches.[177] Most states still have plural executives, where officers such as governors, lieutenant governors, attorneys general, comptrollers, and secretaries of state have separate elections.[174]
See also
Notes
- Since 1935, the Federal Register Act has required documents of "general applicability and legal effect"—regardless of whether the White House labels them orders, proclamations, directives, or otherwise—to be published in the Federal Register. The Act was intended to ensure that the public and the courts have authoritative notice of binding executive actions and to prevent courts from relying on superseded regulations, as had occurred in Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan.[123]