Challenging Executive Overreach: Amicus Strategies in Presidential Power Cases

In the realm of U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) litigation, challenging executive overreach through amicus curiae briefs has become a vital tool for upholding constitutional boundaries and statutory limits. From Washington, D.C., where pivotal decisions shape national policy, to cases originating in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, these briefs provide expert perspectives on presidential authority under frameworks like the Youngstown tripartite analysis.

At Biazzo Law, PLLC, we deliver nationwide Supreme Court appellate representation, including drafting amicus briefs that address core issues of separation of powers and federalism in high-stakes disputes. This guide explores effective amicus strategies in presidential power cases, drawing from real-world examples to illustrate how they safeguard the rule of law across jurisdictions. Whether navigating challenges to federalization orders in Illinois or tariff impositions affecting California importers, understanding amicus advocacy is key to countering unauthorized executive actions.

The Role of Amicus Curiae Briefs in Presidential Power Disputes

Amicus curiae briefs, filed under U.S. Supreme Court Rule 37, allow third parties to offer unique insights without direct involvement, often emphasizing broader constitutional implications. In presidential power cases, these briefs are instrumental in analyzing whether executive actions exceed Article II, U.S. Constitutional authority for the federal Executive Branch, conflict with congressional statutes, or violate structural principles like the U.S. Constitution’s Tenth Amendment. They assist the Court in resolving circuit splits or clarifying precedents, such as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, which categorizes presidential actions based on congressional alignment and direct constitutional authority.

For entities facing executive orders impacting operations in Texas energy sectors or New York financial markets, amicus strategies can highlight real-world efforts, urging the Court to enforce checks on overreach.

Real-World Examples: Strategies in Filed Amicus Briefs

Biazzo Law has employed the following strategies in amicus briefs challenging executive overreach in landmark presidential power cases:

Federalization of National Guard (Trump v. Illinois & Chicago, No. 25A443)

In this Illinois-based dispute, the brief opposed the President’s federalization of the Illinois National Guard and cross-state deployments from Texas for domestic policing in Chicago. Strategies included:

·      Struct statutory reading of 10 U.S.C. § 12406, limiting federalization to invasion, rebellion, or law execution failure—none present.

·      Youngstown Category Three analysis, showing action against congressional will via Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385).

·      Tenth Amendment and Framers’ intent arguments, citing the Federalist Papers to reject standing armies in peacetime.

·      Emphasis on military’s apolitical oath, balancing equities against a stay under Nken v. Holder.

This approach reinforced constitutional limits on executive military use, relevant for similar disputes in California or Washington.

Presidential Tariffs Under IEEPA (Trump v. V.O.S. Selections & Learning Resources v. Trump, Nos. 25-250, 24-1287)

Challenging tariffs imposed via executive order, the brief supported respondents from D.C. and Federal Circuits. Key strategies:

·      Article I textualism: Taxing power (including duties) vests solely in Congress, not delegable broadly under IAAPA/NEA.

·      Major questions doctrine post-Loper Bright, requiring clear congressional authorization for vast economic actions.

·      Rejection of manufactured litigation: Presidents can’t issue unlawful orders to amend the U.S. Constitution via judicial review—must use Article V.

·      Accountability precedents like Youngstown and Trump v. United States to affirm no one is above the law.

This filing highlighted separation-of-powers issues.

Reinterpretation of 14^th Amendment Citizenship (Trump v. Washington & Trump v. Barbara, Nos. 25-364, 25-365

Supporting respondents from First and Ninth Circuits, the brief contested an executive order narrowing birthright citizenship. Strategies:

·      Judicial review exclusivity under Marbury v. Madison, preventing executive reinterpretation.

·      Doctrinal analysis of Wong Kim Ark and Plyer v. Doe, rejecting theories like “complete allegiance” or “consent jurisdiction” through closed exceptions.

·      Structural safeguards: Preserving federalism and liberty by enforcing territorial jus soli rule.

·      Statutory conflict with 8 U.S.C. § 1401, citing Clinton v. New York against nullification.

Conclusion: Partner with Experienced SCOTUS Counsel for Amicus Advocacy

Amicus strategies are essential for challenging executive overreach in presidential power cases, ensuring adherence to constitutional and statutory bounds. By leveraging textual, structural, and precedential arguments, these briefs protect nationwide interests.

At Biazzo Law, PLLC, we provide expert nationwide U.S. Supreme Court representation, from amicus briefs to certiorari petitions. If you’re confronting executive actions with national implications, contact us for strategic counsel. Visit our U.S. Supreme Court Appellate Services page or email corey@biazzolaw.com to discuss your case.