This insightful book guides readers through the transformation of, and theoretical challenges posed by, the separation of powers in national contexts. Building on the notion that the traditional tripartite structure of the separation of powers has undergone a significant process of fragmentation and expansion, this book identifies and illustrates the most pressing and intriguing aspects of the separation of powers in contemporary constitutional systems.

To what extent should the doctrine of the separation of powers evolve in light of recent shifts in constitutional design and practice? Constitutions now often include newer forms of rights – such as socioeconomic and environmental rights – and are written with an explicitly transformative purpose. They also often reflect include new independent bodies such as human rights commissions and electoral tribunals whose position and function within the traditional structure is novel. The practice of the separation of powers has also changed, as the executive has tended to gain power and deliberative bodies like legislatures have often been thrown into a state of crisis. The chapters in this edited volume grapple with these shifts and the ways in which the doctrine of the separation of powers might respond to them. It also asks whether the shifts that are taking place are mostly a product of the constitutional systems of the global south, or instead reflect changes that run across most liberal democratic constitutional systems around the world.

Dramatic issues of presidential power and executive accountability to both courts and Congress have pervaded the news for at least the last half-century. Political polarization and the election in 2016 of an "outsider" president intent on disrupting conventional governance norms have generated a seemingly unprecedented volume of new legal controversies. This updated edition addresses both separation of powers questions of long standing and many of the hot issues arising in the later Obama years and the early months of the Trump Administration. The authors have wholly revised the text's exploration of the President's "faithful execution of the laws" obligations, significantly expanded the material on presidential authority regarding immigration, and updated the material on presidential regulatory oversight to take account of the latest developments. For the first time in this text, litigation over the Foreign Emoluments Clause makes an appearance. The materials on war powers have been reorganized into two chapters, highlighting how post-9/11 developments have challenged the categorical distinctions between war and peace, battlefield and home front, and domestic and international affairs around which "war powers law" has traditionally been oriented. The book retains its clear structure and historical perspective, along with the authors' emphasis on the ethical challenges posed for lawyers in the executive and legislative branches who seek to address novel separation of powers issues in professionally appropriate ways. A resource website is available at separationofpowerslaw.com. Adopters of the book may view additional information by logging onto the site. Faculty may request login information by emailing [email protected].

In countries and supranational entities around the globe, constitutional reform has transferred an unprecedented amount of power from representative institutions to judiciaries. The constitutionalization of rights and the establishment of judicial review are widely believed to have benevolent and progressive origins, and significant redistributive, power-diffusing consequences. Ran Hirschl challenges this conventional wisdom. Drawing upon a comprehensive comparative inquiry into the political origins and legal consequences of the recent constitutional revolutions in Canada, Israel, New Zealand, and South Africa, Hirschl shows that the trend toward constitutionalization is hardly driven by politicians' genuine commitment to democracy, social justice, or universal rights. Rather, it is best understood as the product of a strategic interplay among hegemonic yet threatened political elites, influential economic stakeholders, and judicial leaders. This self-interested coalition of legal innovators determines the timing, extent, and nature of constitutional reforms. Hirschl demonstrates that whereas judicial empowerment through constitutionalization has a limited impact on advancing progressive notions of distributive justice, it has a transformative effect on political discourse. The global trend toward juristocracy, Hirschl argues, is part of a broader process whereby political and economic elites, while they profess support for democracy and sustained development, attempt to insulate policymaking from the vicissitudes of democratic politics.

"This book describes and explains the failure of the federal courts of the United States to act and to provide remedies to individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated by illegal state coercion and violence. This remedial vacuum must be understood in light of the original design and historical development of the federal courts. At its conception, the federal judiciary was assumed to be independent thanks to an apolitical appointment process, a limited supply of adequately trained lawyers (which would prevent cherry-picking), and the constraining effect of laws and constitutional provision. Each of these checks quickly failed. As a result, the early federal judicial system was highly dependent on Congress. Not until the last quarter of the nineteenth century did a robust federal judiciary start to emerge, and not until the first quarter of the twentieth century did it take anything like its present form. The book then charts how the pressure from Congress and the White House has continued to shape courts behaviour-first eliciting a mid-twentieth-century explosion in individual remedies, and then driving a five-decade long collapse. Judges themselves have not avidly resisted this decline, in part because of ideological reasons and in part out of institutional worries about a ballooning docket. Today, as a result of these trends, the courts are stingy with individual remedies, but aggressively enforce the so-called "structural" constitution of the separation of powers and federalism. This cocktail has highly regressive effects, and is in urgent need of reform"--