1127 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, DC 20036
Theories of Presidential Power
May 7, 2025Thirteenth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference — EBRXIII
Theme: Theories of Presidential Power
Wednesday, May 7, 2025
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
To be Announced!
Welcome & Opening
9:00 a.m. – 9:15 a.m.
Plenary Session 1: The End of Humphrey’s Executor?
9:15 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
Plenary Session 2: DOGE and the Future of the Federal Workforce
10:35 a.m. – 11:50 a.m.
Lunch
11:50 a.m. – 12:20 p.m.
Luncheon Panel: Executive Authority v. Judicial Power: Nationwide Injunctions and TROs
12:20 p.m. – 1:35 p.m.
Plenary 3: The Constitutionality and Economics of Presidential Tariffs and Impoundment
1:45 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Plenary 4: The Art of Deregulation: Executive Orders and Limited Government
3:05 p.m. – 4:20 p.m.
Closing Address
4:30-5:00
Closing Reception
5:00-6:00pm
Back to top
Does the President control independent agencies? This panel will examine the Trump administration’s efforts to reassert presidential control over independent federal agencies, considering the constitutional, legal, and practical implications of such actions. Central to the discussion will be Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld the independence of certain regulatory bodies by limiting the President’s removal power, and the perspectives raised by legal cases such as Hampton Dellinger’s, which questioned the administration's authority over the removal of agency officials. Proponents argue that increased presidential oversight enhances accountability, ensuring agencies align with elected leadership’s policies, while critics warn that such changes could erode agency independence and introduce political influence into regulatory decisions. The discussion will consider whether these changes promote efficient governance or threaten the integrity of federal oversight.
Featuring:
On January 20th, 2025, President Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) by executive order. DOGE and its head, Elon Musk, hope to reduce the size and inefficiencies of the administrative state and return the federal bureaucracy to being accountable to the President and, ultimately, the people. While the scope and extent of this mission are still to be determined, one of DOGE's early endeavors is to dramatically reduce the number of civil service employees determined to be unnecessary or wasteful. While many are vocal in their support of these actions, they are not without pushback, including several legal challenges.
What is DOGE, and are its structure and actions legal? Where does the power to remove civil servants rest? Are there limits to that power? What impacts will their removals have on the Executive Branch?
Featuring:
In recent years, the use of Nationwide Injunctions and Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) by federal courts—often issued by a single district judge—has sparked renewed debate over the proper role of the judiciary in checking executive power.
Proponents argue that such remedies are necessary to ensure uniformity in the application of federal law and to provide meaningful relief in cases where the Executive, as a national actor, enforces policies that affect individuals and entities across the country. To deny courts this authority, they contend, would result in a fragmented legal landscape in which the same executive action may be simultaneously lawful in some jurisdictions and unlawful in others.
Critics, however, view these sweeping orders as exceeding the bounds of judicial power and disrupting the constitutional balance among the branches. From this perspective, nationwide relief interferes with the President’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and transforms individual cases into de facto referenda on national policy.
With recent high-profile Executive actions once again drawing TROs and Nationwide Injunctions from federal courts, this roundtable will offer a range of perspectives to examine whether such remedies represent a proper exercise of judicial authority.
Featuring:
Congress holds the purse strings, but just how much can the executive guide Congress’ hand? This question has been brought into the spotlight by recent Trump Administration actions—such as impoundment of funds and the levying of tariffs—that are aimed at curbing government spending and growing the domestic economy. Some argue that these are usurpations of executive branch power, taking over duties given expressly to Congress by the Constitution. Others contend, however, that these powers are crucial elements of a strong and energetic executive, and are implied by Article II of the Constitution. Is the impoundment power a legitimate extension of executive authority? Can Congress delegate its powers over trade to the president? This panel will discuss these questions and more with a view to current legal and governmental disputes.
Featuring:
Since taking office on January 20, 2025, President Trump has emphasized deregulation. Deregulatory efforts have focused both on undoing Biden-era policies in areas of interest (environmental regulation, SOGI issues, immigration, etc.) and on a broader effort to limit the scope of administrative power more broadly. In light of these strong changes, this panel will discuss the history of deregulation efforts in the Executive Branch, how those compare to the deregulatory efforts of the Trump Administration, and what these changes may mean both practically and more institutionally for the future of the Administrative State.
Featuring: