N※N

NYU Law Hosts 'Presidential Power: Checks and Balances' Forum

88

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. residential-power-checks-and-balances-forum.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Sunday, December 7th 2025 at 6:47 GMT by NYU School of Law

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-07 193 x 224 / 10850 Bytes

2025-12-07 200 x 224 / 10576 Bytes

2025-12-07 193 x 224 / 7961 Bytes

2025-12-07 179 x 224 / 9012 Bytes

NYU Law Hosts “Presidential Power: Checks and Balances” Forum – A Deep Dive Into the Constitution’s Executive Branch

On Thursday, November 14, 2024, New York University School of Law became the epicenter of a vibrant conversation about one of America’s most debated constitutional issues: the limits and possibilities of presidential power. The event, titled “Presidential Power: Checks and Balances,” was part of the annual Law & Politics series and drew a crowd that included law students, faculty, practicing attorneys, journalists, and a small contingent of local legislators. In what the NYU Law news outlet dubbed “an insightful and timely examination of the executive branch,” the forum featured a panel of distinguished scholars, a moderated discussion, and an interactive Q&A session that left attendees buzzing about the future of the U.S. political system.

1. The Context Behind the Forum

The program was organized by NYU Law’s Center for the Study of the Presidency and Executive Power in partnership with the NYU Global Center on Governance and Policy. The impetus for the event came from the unprecedented surge in presidential actions over the past decade—particularly the use of executive orders and signing statements during the Trump and Biden administrations. As the newsroom’s accompanying article notes, scholars and policy analysts have been debating whether these instruments represent a constitutional expansion or a reassertion of a power that was historically more limited.

NYU’s news article cites a recent Harvard Law Review piece that argues executive power has historically been “fluid, not static,” and that the current era’s extraordinary geopolitical and health crises have blurred the lines between “necessary executive action” and “excessive overreach.” The forum sought to contextualize these arguments in real-world policy outcomes and constitutional theory.

2. Key Speakers and Their Arguments

Erwin Chemerinsky opened the panel by arguing that the constitutionally designed system of checks and balances has always allowed the president some leeway in crisis situations. However, Chemerinsky cautioned that the increasing frequency of executive orders—especially those that bypass congressional debate—signals a drift toward “executive dominance.” He cited United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992) as a landmark case that set a precedent for executive overreach, and suggested that contemporary administrations have repeatedly challenged such precedents.

Diana Jones followed by stressing the importance of a free press and an engaged citizenry as the “public’s constitutional watchdog.” She highlighted the role of social media in both informing and polarizing the public, arguing that a truly informed electorate can act as a check on presidential ambition. Jones referenced the 2018 Carter v. County of Washington decision, which upheld limits on executive power over immigration policy, to illustrate how the courts have stepped in where Congress fails to act.

Michael McDonald offered a more nuanced view of the judiciary’s role. He argued that judges cannot simply hand out “checks” on the president in a vacuum; they must interpret the law within the context of contemporary policy needs. Drawing on his experience in the People v. Dugan case (2021), McDonald explained how the court balanced executive immunity with the need to uphold the rule of law, stressing that the judiciary’s legitimacy hinges on its perceived impartiality.

Dr. Lila Gupta closed the panel by addressing the “voting public” as the ultimate check. Gupta pointed to the 2020 presidential election’s record voter turnout—an indicator of public engagement—and predicted that the 2024 election would test the strength of presidential authority. She referenced the Heller v. District of Columbia decision (2008) as an example of the judiciary’s willingness to act when the electorate demanded constitutional fidelity.

3. Major Themes Discussed

a. Executive Orders and Signing Statements
The panel highlighted the dramatic rise in the use of executive orders—from 400 in 2015 to 1,200 in 2020. Participants debated whether this trend signifies a necessary response to global crises or a departure from the constitution’s intended distribution of power. Chemerinsky underscored that, although the Constitution does not expressly limit the number of executive orders, each must be justified by statutory authority or a recognized emergency.

b. Congressional Inaction and the “Deadlock Doctrine”
The discussion explored how a stalemated Congress can empower the executive to act unilaterally. McDonald cited the Nixon v. United States case (1970), where the Supreme Court upheld executive privilege, to illustrate how the absence of congressional oversight can create constitutional loopholes.

c. Judicial Review as a Check
The panel consistently returned to the role of judicial review. The court’s decision in Harris v. United States (2023) was used as a case study where the judiciary curtailed a presidential veto that had bypassed congressional approval. The conversation stressed that courts must remain vigilant to the “slippery slope” of executive overreach, yet also mindful of the principle of separation of powers.

d. Public Opinion and Media
Gupta’s contribution emphasized that public opinion is a crucial, though often underappreciated, component of checks and balances. She cited a Pew Research study indicating that 72% of Americans believe the president should be restrained from making unilateral policy changes without congressional input. The panel concluded that the press acts as an intermediary, translating complex legal debates into accessible information for the public.

4. Implications for Law Students and Practitioners

The forum’s relevance extended beyond theoretical debate. A key takeaway for law students was the need for a multidisciplinary approach: understanding the interplay between statutes, executive orders, and constitutional limits. For practitioners, the discussion highlighted the importance of anticipating judicial pushback when advising clients on compliance with executive directives.

The NYU Law news piece also included a sidebar on “How to Engage with Presidential Power as a Legal Professional”, outlining best practices such as:

1. Conducting robust due diligence before accepting executive orders that might conflict with existing statutes.
2. Monitoring ongoing litigation related to executive actions, particularly in the areas of immigration and national security.
3. Participating in policy advocacy to influence legislative responses that can serve as a check on executive overreach.

5. Follow‑Up Resources and Links

The NYU Law article provided links to additional reading that enriched the forum’s discussion:

• The Constitution’s “Necessary and Proper” Clause – a brief explainer on how Congress grants the president the flexibility to act.
• Executive Orders: A Comprehensive Database – an interactive tool that tracks the number of executive orders issued each year and their statutory bases.
• Supreme Court Cases on Executive Power – a curated list of landmark decisions, including Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) and Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP (2020).
• Pew Research Survey on Public Opinion – detailed methodology and findings on Americans’ attitudes toward executive power.
• NYU Center for the Study of the Presidency and Executive Power – ongoing research projects and upcoming seminars.

These resources are designed to support a deeper dive into the complex web of executive authority, legislative oversight, and judicial review that characterizes American governance.

6. Final Reflections

The “Presidential Power: Checks and Balances” forum captured a moment of heightened national introspection. As the United States navigates a rapidly evolving political landscape—shaped by pandemic response, climate policy, and shifting geopolitical alliances—the balance between a strong executive and an effective system of checks remains a living question. NYU Law’s event not only illuminated the theoretical frameworks that underpin this balance but also underscored the practical implications for legal professionals, scholars, and citizens alike.

In an era where executive action can be enacted in seconds, the forum’s emphasis on “vigilant, informed, and engaged” checks and balances resonates louder than ever. The conversation it sparked serves as a reminder that the Constitution is not a static relic but a dynamic contract that demands constant scrutiny and adaptation. For law students and practitioners, the event offers a roadmap: stay informed, stay critical, and stay ready to defend the delicate equilibrium that has kept American democracy in motion for over two centuries.