aston- ishing details of two National Security Agency (NSA) mass surveillance pro- grams that had been approved by the FISC,18 Congress responded with the

- Ku_Final_PDF

327 (2005). 7. See Ku & Yoo, supra note 4, at 199-219. the yale law journal online 119:15 2009 18 As John Yoo and I have argued elsewhere,8

- 20. Eidelson Approved (2)

argument, see generally Transcript of Oral Argument, Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020) (No. 18-587); from

- Ablavsky

CONSTITUTIONS: DEFIANT VISIONS OF POWER AND COMMUNITY 18-48 (2014). 326. Id. at 46. 327. Id. at 37. empire states 1853 proposals to divide

- Galbraith Lu_Gender-Identity Protection, Trade, and the Trump Administration

Trade Agreement art. 18.1(1), U.S.-Aus., May 18, 2004, 118 Stat. 919; Chile-United States Free Trade Agreement annex 18.5(4)(a), U.S.-Chile, June 6

- a.326.Daskal.398

Cybercrime arts. 17-18, 32, opened for signature Nov. 23, 2001, S. TREATY DOC. NO. 108-11 (2006), E.T.S. No. 185 (entered into force July 1, 2004). 245

- 21.Bulman-Pozen_FINAL

entities about the impact of federal regulation on the states.18 On this view, the expansion of federal administrative authority need not be a

The Constitutionality of Civil Forfeiture

forfeitures incurred thereunder “may be sued for . . . by bill, plaint, or information.” Act of Jan. 18, 1815, ch. 22, § 21, 3 Stat. 180, 185-186; Act of

114. See Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 41 (1849); Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684, 717-18 (2019). 115. See discussion infra Section III.B. 116