These Trump Tweets Are 'Not Law,' Harvard Law Review Study Says
"The conviction that the tweets were not law is rooted in beliefs about what law does and should look like and how it is and should be made," the Harvard Law Review article said.
January 16, 2018 at 02:20 PM
5 minute read
President Donald Trump, not using Twitter. Courtesy: White House
The @realdonaldtrump Twitter account has caused headaches for companies and federal agencies alike, keeping corporate public relations teams on alert for a negative social media shout-out and forcing government lawyers to address the consequences the president's tweets can have on pending court cases.
President Donald Trump's tweets are official statements, according to the U.S. Justice Department. But do Trump's tweets, fired off at all hours, amount to orders carrying the weight of law? A new Harvard Law Review study concludes—as many scholars have opined in recent weeks—they do not.
The Harvard article, focused on Trump tweets from July that purported to ban transgender people from serving in the military, takes a deep dive into presidential communication. The piece looks at presidential intent in messaging, tone and language.
….Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming…..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017
“The conviction that the tweets were not law is rooted in beliefs about what law does and should look like and how it is and should be made,” according to the article, which was unsigned and published online last week.
Trump subsequently issued a presidential memorandum, prompting the U.S. Department of Defense in August to say it would “carry out” the policy direction in consult with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Trump's memo was law, not his tweets, according to the Harvard study.
“A complete account of why the memorandum was legally effective but the tweets were not requires grappling with our commitments to values like accountability and to ideals like the rule of law,” the Harvard article said.
Among other things, the Harvard article looked at how Trump's transgender directive was issued. From the article:
“Consider that President Trump tweets from a personal account, @realDonaldTrump. Communicating binding directives through a personal account on a nongovernmental platform is inconsistent with the principle that executive directives maintain across administrations because they 'issue[] from the Office of the Chief Executive.' The President could alter or delete a tweet in seconds; instruments from official channels tend to be stickier.”
Tweets, the article said, also fall short of common expectations how the federal government gives notice of policy changes. Documents in the Federal Register, on the other hand, have the benefit of being easy for the public to find and “appear legal.”
“Even the White House's website version of the [presidential memorandum] is formatted to feel legal in a way the tweets do not,” the article stated. “That said, the proliferation of legal instruments less formal than executive orders, as well as the adoption of new platforms for government communication, suggests that expectations about what law looks like and where to find it are fluid.”
Law firms including Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr and Foley Hoag went to court in Washington to challenge the new transgender policy with a complaint that pointed to Trump's tweets. Other lawsuits also noted Trump's tweets.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in October ruled for the plaintiffs in their challenge to the new directive, and she refused to put her decision on hold to let the government's appeal unfold.
In her ruling, Kollar-Kotelly took a dig at how the president unveiled the new policy.
“[T]he president abruptly announced, via Twitter—without any of the formality or deliberative processes that generally accompany the development and announcement of major policy changes that will gravely affect the lives of many Americans—that all transgender individuals would be precluded from participating in the military in any capacity,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her ruling.
The Harvard Law Review article made a similar point. “For one,” the article stated, “the tweets evaded typical processes of accountable, reasoned decisionmaking. Extensive dialogue with agencies and stakeholders usually precedes a final directive, and memoranda are often accompanied by detailed guidance and initial agency plans.”
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'New Circumstances': Winston & Strawn Seek Expedited Relief in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute read5th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
5 minute readDOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
Trending Stories
- 1What to Know About Naming a Law Firm
- 2Texas Shows the Way Forward in Resolving Mass Tort Gridlock
- 3Ninth Circuit Rules on Inherent Authority and FRCP 37(e)
- 4Where CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
- 5Appellate Court's Decision on Public Employee Pension Eligibility Helps the Judiciary
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250