Uploaded May 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Mr. Samuel Adkisson, Associate Counsel to the President, White House Counsel's Office, on presidential accountability over the executive branch:
“To the extent federal agencies exercise significant executive power, that agency must be accountable to the president. Article II of the Constitution vests the executive power in a president of the United States of America, period. The Constitution also provides that the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. But if the president can't effectively supervise his subordinates in the executive branch — if, in other words, he is not in charge — it becomes practically impossible for the president to fulfill his duties under Article II of the Constitution. It also begs the question: who would be in charge? It's not the courts. It's not Congress. It's certainly not the people.”
Mr. Samuel Adkisson, Associate Counsel to the President, White House Counsel's Office, on presidential accountability over the executive branch:
“To the extent federal agencies exercise significant executive power, that agency must be accountable to the president. Article II of the Constitution vests the executive power in a president of the United States of America, period. The Constitution also provides that the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. But if the president can't effectively supervise his subordinates in the executive branch — if, in other words, he is not in charge — it becomes practically impossible for the president to fulfill his duties under Article II of the Constitution. It also begs the question: who would be in charge? It's not the courts. It's not Congress. It's certainly not the people.”
![[LIVE] A Seat at the Sitting - March 2026](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RCVhBcYuiME/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] A Seat at the Sitting - March 2026
Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.
• Watson v. Republican National Committee, (March 23) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether the federal election-day statutes, 2 U.S.C. § 7, 2 U.S.C. § 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 1, preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.
• Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., (March 24) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel can be invoked to bar a plaintiff who fails to disclose a civil claim in bankruptcy filings from pursuing that claim simply because there is a potential motive for nondisclosure, regardless of whether there is evidence that the plaintiff in fact acted in bad faith.
• Noem v. Al Otro Lado, (March 24) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.–Mexico border “arrives in the United States” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., which provides that an alien who “arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration officer.
• Flower Foods, Inc. v. Brock, (March 25) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether workers who deliver locally goods that travel in interstate commerce — but who do not transport the goods across borders nor interact with vehicles that cross borders — are “transportation workers” “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” for purposes of the exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.
• Abouammo v. United States, (March 30) - Proper Venue, Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether venue is proper in a district where no offense conduct took place, so long as the statute’s intent element “contemplates” effects that could occur there.
• Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, (March 30) - Jurisdiction; Issue(s): Whether a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintains jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking.
• Pitchford v. Cain, (March 31) - Criminal Appellate Litigation; Issue(s): Whether, under the standards set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably determined that petitioner waived his right to rebut the prosecutors asserted race-neutral reasons for exercising peremptory strikes against four black jurors.
• Trump v. Barbara, (April 1) - Birthright Citizenship, Fourteenth Amendment; Whether Executive Order No. 14,160 complies on its face with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and with 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which codifies that clause.
Featuring:
• Lisa L. Dixon, Executive Director, Center for Election Confidence
• Hon. Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP
• Zac Morgan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation
• Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General
• (Moderator) Oliver Dunford, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/a-seat-at-the-sitting-march-2026
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
![[LIVE] What Did the Founders Think of the President’s Pardon Power?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TTUUcMQHoGI/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] What Did the Founders Think of the President’s Pardon Power?
In this Federalist Society America250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.
During the constitutional convention, Alexander Hamilton raised the idea of a presidential pardon power, borrowing from the British monarchy’s prerogative of mercy. Hamilton’s proposal ultimately resulted in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the president the authority to pardon individuals convicted of a federal crime.
The first presidential pardon was exercised by George Washington in 1795, when he granted amnesty to individuals who participated in Pennsylvania’s Whiskey Rebellion. Since then, there have been more than 14,000 instances of presidential pardons. From Andrew Johnson’s pardon of Jefferson Davis to Gerald Ford’s preemptive pardon of Richard Nixon to more recent instances including Joe Biden’s preemptive pardon of Hunter Biden and Donald Trump’s January 6th pardons, presidents’ use – and sometimes purported abuse – of the power has been a controversial and fiercely debated executive authority throughout our nation’s history.
Join our panel of experts as they explore the Founders’ views of the pardon power and place recent use in context with the founding generation.
Featuring:
• Paul J. Larkin, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American Freedom
• Andrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute; Contributing Editor, National Review
• James Trusty, Member, Ifrah Law
• (Moderator) Jeffrey DeSousa, Florida Office of the Attorney General
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/what-did-the-founders-think-of-the-president-s-pardon-power
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
