Curtis A. Bradley

Filter By:


Recent Commentary


Constitutional Issues Relating To The NATO Support Act

by Curtis A. Bradley, Jack Goldsmithvia Lawfare
Monday, January 28, 2019

President Trump is making noises again about withdrawing the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, which established NATO. Last week the House of Representatives voted 357-22 in support of the NATO Support Act. The bill does three things. First, it states the “sense of Congress” that the president “shall not withdraw the United States from NATO,” and that “the case Goldwater v. Carter is not controlling legal precedent.” 

Analysis and Commentary

Executive Agreements: International Lawmaking Without Accountability?

by Jack Goldsmith, Curtis A. Bradley, Oona A. Hathawayvia Lawfare
Wednesday, January 9, 2019

In a post last month, we described the sharp decline in the presidential use of Article II treaties—reaching a new low in the Trump administration, which so far has submitted only one such treaty to the Senate. This decline does not mean that the United States has stopped concluding international agreements. 

Analysis and Commentary

The Death Of Article II Treaties?

by Curtis A. Bradley, Oona A. Hathaway, Jack Goldsmithvia Lawfare
Thursday, December 13, 2018

President Trump has submitted only one treaty to the Senate so far in his presidency. That is a historic low, and it is the latest sign that the Article II treaty process may be dying.

Analysis and Commentary

OLC’s Meaningless 'National Interests' Test For The Legality Of Presidential Uses Of Force

by Jack Goldsmith, Curtis A. Bradleyvia Lawfare
Tuesday, June 5, 2018

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) published a legal opinion May 31 that explained the basis for its oral advice in April that President Trump had the authority under Article II of the Constitution to direct airstrikes against Syria. 


Does Congress Care That The President Controls International Law?

by Jack Goldsmith, Curtis A. Bradleyvia Lawfare
Thursday, November 30, 2017

We have a new draft paper, forthcoming in the Harvard Law Review, on how extensively the president has come to control international law for the United States, and what, if anything, should be done about it. As we explain at the end of this post, one of the central questions implicated by the paper is: Does Congress care?

Analysis and Commentary

How To Limit Jasta's Adverse Impact

by Curtis A. Bradley, Jack Goldsmithvia Lawfare
Friday, June 3, 2016

We have previously written about why we think JASTA—the bill approved by the Senate last month that would strip foreign sovereign immunity for certain terrorism-related torts inside the United States—is a bad idea.  We argued that the law would be widely perceived around the world as a violation of international law and that it would undermine the U.S. ability to claim immunity in other nation’s courts, and that these costs to the nation would likely outweigh any benefits to the potential plaintiffs.


Don't Let Americans Sue Saudi Arabia

by Curtis A. Bradley, Jack Goldsmithvia The New York Times
Friday, April 22, 2016

There has been much debate about whether a bill advancing through Congress that aims to expose Saudi Arabia to lawsuits in American courts for its alleged connection to the 9/11 attacks would unduly harm diplomatic and economic relations between the two countries.