Prof. Merrill’s Hallows Lecture on How Implicit Legal Ideas Have Deformed the Constitution

Thomas W. Merrill amd Joe Kearney at a podium.
Dean Kearney (left) welcomes a question for Prof. Merrill after the Hallows Lecture.

The Law School had the privilege earlier this week to present our annual Hallows Lecture. The occasion remembers E. Harold Hallows, a Milwaukee lawyer who taught part-time at Marquette Law School during 1930–1958 and then served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 1958 until his death in 1974, the last six years as chief justice. For the lecture, we welcomed Thomas W. Merrill, the Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law at Columbia University, one of the nation’s most widely respected legal scholars.

Prof. Merrill’s Hallows Lecture, delivered on March 2 in the Lubar Center before 200 people (we counted), was rather a tour de force. Here were the title and advance description:

“Unstated”: How Three Implicit Legal Ideas Have Sidelined Congress and Empowered the President and the Courts

Why has Congress, the constitutional keystone of the federal government, become so ineffective, relative to the president and the federal judiciary? While many explanations have been offered, one important but unappreciated reason is legal ideas—not just widely discussed concepts such as the unitary executive and originalist interpretation of the Constitution but also, and perhaps even more importantly, unstated ideas that have taken hold without much explicit discussion or acknowledgment. This lecture will identify and discuss three largely unquestioned ideas that have combined to deform our constitutional regime. Their result has been that the president wields immense power in the guise of issuing orders and binding regulations and the courts exercise great power in the guise of interpreting the Constitution and laws, while Congress stands largely out of the picture. While there is no magic incantation for restoring a proper constitutional balance, an important first step is to recognize the role that unstated ideas have played in the transformation, so that they can be unmasked and debated in the open.

Even in advance of its publication this coming fall in the Marquette Law Review and Marquette Lawyer, Professor Merrill serialized the lecture this week for a national audience on the Volokh Conspiracy blog. Following an introductory post by Professor Eugene Volokh, the blog featured the following posts the past four days, March 2–5:

  1. How Unstated Legal Ideas Have Deformed the Constitution
  2. The “Unitary Executive” Theory’s Contribution to the Deformation of the Constitution
  3. The Role of Delegation Theories in Deforming the Constitution
  4. How the Supreme Court’s Conception of Its Role Contributes to the Deformation of the Constitution

The text of the entire lecture as prepared for presentation can be read here, and a video of the lecture is available to view here.

Continue ReadingProf. Merrill’s Hallows Lecture on How Implicit Legal Ideas Have Deformed the Constitution

Running Away from History in Trump v. Slaughter

[This piece is cross-posted and was originally published in the Yale J. on Reg.: Notice & Comment blog.] On December 8, 2026, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the landmark case of Trump v. Slaughter. A fundamental issue in the case is whether the statutorily created office of Commissioner for the FTC can include partial restrictions on the President’s ability to remove a Commissioner. The government contends that the statutory removal restrictions impinge on an indefeasible Presidential removal power under Article II.  

While the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Seila Law and Collins have recognized an indefeasible Presidential removal power for some officers, a flood of recent research has undermined historical arguments for a categorical rule that would extend removal at pleasure to all officers or all principal officers. For summaries of this historical literature see Chabot, Katz, Rosenblum & Manners, Nelson, Katz & Gienapp. (My latest paper, The Interstitial Executive: A View from the Founding, adds more fuel to the fire: it introduces a critical body of previously overlooked archival evidence to show that the Washington, Adams, and Jefferson administrations routinely complied with statutory removal restrictions in their officer commissions.)

The government’s reply brief banked on recent precedent from the Roberts Court. It leaned into Seila Law and the unitary understanding of the Decision of 1789 that the Court adopted in that case.  At the same time, the government offered an extension of Seila Law that would create further conflicts with the historical record.

Both Seila Law and the officers created pursuant to the Decision of 1789 involved departments led by single officers. Neither Seila Law nor the Decision of 1789 involved statutory tenure protections for officers serving on multimember commissions such as the Federal Reserve or the FTC. As a result, Seila Law is not necessarily at odds with historical evidence supporting these independent multimember commissions.  Some of the strongest Founding era examples of tenure-protected officers were those serving on multimember commissions such as the Sinking Fund Commission (described in my work here and here) and the Revolutionary War Debt Commission (described in recent work by Victoria Nourse as well as my new paper).  

Continue ReadingRunning Away from History in Trump v. Slaughter

Collecting Posts on Seventh Circuit Day

It was a great privilege for Marquette University Law School to host the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Eckstein Hall earlier this semester (September 25, 2025). The following blog posts form a now-complete series seeking to capture some aspects of the day:

  1. Seventh Circuit Day, Part 1: The Cases and Arguments (Nov. 3, 2025) by Joseph D. Kearney
  2. Effective Appellate Advocacy: Advice from the Bench (Nov. 5, 2025) by Melissa Love Koenig
  3. Appellate Judges Give a Window into How They Do Their Work (Nov. 7, 2025) by Alan J. Borsuk
  4. Praise for an Exemplar of the Marquette Lawyer—and of a Judge (Nov. 11, 2025) by Alan J. Borsuk
  5. “Behind the Scenes” of Organizing a Visit by an Appellate Court (Nov. 13, 2025) by Anna Fodor
  6. Seventh Circuit Day at Eckstein Hall “Felt Like This ‘Event’” and Offered Valuable Lessons (Nov. 18, 2025) by Alan J. Borsuk

Sincere thanks to all—the Court and its staff, those at the Law School, and members of the Milwaukee legal community—who contributed to this inspiring educational experience.

Continue ReadingCollecting Posts on Seventh Circuit Day