Friday, June 10, 2016
United States v. Texas: Ex Ante or Ex Post Judicial Review? by David S. Rubenstein & Pratheepan Gulasekaram
At Notice & Comment, David Rubenstein and Pratheepan Gulasekaram explain how states might challenge executive nonenforcement policies in the posture of defendants—what they call “ex post judicial review”—and suggest what this alternative route could entail for questions of standing, separation of powers, and federalism.
More specifically, they frame the analysis around three lines of inquiry:
"First, what is required to make ex post judicial review available in this case and others? Second, what ways are ex ante and ex post review different, both practically and legally? Third, in situations where states wishing to challenge executive action ex ante may do so in the posture of a defendant ex post, what constitutional and normative values, if any, are served or undermined by these alternative paths to judicial review?"
Their preliminary view is that:
“[A]rguments drawn from the ex ante/ex post frame potentially cut both ways. Fundamentally, the ex ante and ex post alternatives are not equivalents. Both routes to state-sponsored judicial review of federal executive action carry concerns, but they are not the same concerns. Thus, when considered in juxtaposition, the ex ante/ex post alternatives yield a number of prescriptive tradeoffs, over which reasonable minds will surely differ . . . .But, in order to fully engage these questions, it is crucial to first get the questions right. As some justices suggested and the Solicitor General appeared to concede, the choice between judicial review and no judicial review of executive action in Texas is a false dichotomy. Rather, the choice is between no review, ex ante review, and the possibility of ex post review, and all that each entails.”