The Institute is unique in its structure and function—neither a traditional Executive branch agency nor an entirely private nonprofit corporation. A close evaluation of USIP’s organic statute and its practical operations indicates that the arguments ably presented on both sides have some merit, but both end up taking leaps to reach conclusions that are unsupported by the factual record and current jurisprudence. This Court concludes that, despite exhibiting qualities of nongovernmental organizations (“NGOs”), USIP has strong governmental ties and must be considered a part of the federal government, at least for purposes of resolving the constitutional separation-of-powers questions posed here. At the same time, USIP does not exercise governmental, let alone executive, power under the Constitution and is not part of the Executive branch. Instead, USIP supports both the Executive and Legislative branches as an independent think tank that carries out its own international peace research, education and training, and information services.
As an independent entity exercising inconsequential government power and de minimis, if any, executive power, Congress’s ability to restrict the President’s removal power is even greater than that outlined in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), and the Supreme Court’s other seminal presidential removal power cases.
The President second-guessed the judgment of Congress and President Reagan in creating USIP 40 years ago, and the judgment of every Congress since then, including in 2024, in appropriating funds to USIP, when he deemed this organization to be “unnecessary” three months ago in EO 14217. The President and his subordinates then used brute force and threats of criminal process to take over USIP’s headquarters, despite being cautioned that this organization did not fall within the Executive branch and its leadership was not subject to the President’s unilateral Executive branch removal power. This Administration then went even further, taking severe actions to dissemble USIP, including terminating its appointed Board members, its expert management, its dedicated staff and contractors located in both Washington, D.C. and around the world, and dispersing its assets and headquarters building. These actions against USIP were unlawful.
The Constitution makes clear that the President’s constitutional authority only extends as far as Article II, but even Article II does not grant him absolute removal authority over his subordinates, under current binding caselaw precedent. Outside of Article II, he has little constitutional authority to act at all. The President’s efforts here to take over an organization outside of those bounds, contrary to statute established by Congress and by acts of force and threat using local and federal law enforcement officers, represented a gross usurpation of power and a way of conducting government affairs that unnecessarily traumatized the committed leadership and employees of USIP, who deserved better.
Add new comment