Spring 2026
Does the Unitary Executive Theory Legitimize DOGE?
Editor’s Note:
This article is one in a series produced by returning writers in the Harvard Undergraduate Law Review who participated in a reading group on the unitary executive theory in the spring of 2026. Writers read and discussed core Supreme Court cases on executive power, articles on the unitary executive theory, and reports on actions by the current administration. They then each wrote a short reflection on the unitary executive theory and executive power. The articles produced range in their focuses (from the role of the executive in international relations to regulatory agencies) and their theoretical underpinnings (from originalist to textualist to pragmatist), but all were produced in conversation and each brings a unique perspective to the table. In some cases, writers addressed a then-forthcoming Supreme Court decision. Where the Court has since handed down these decisions, their articles provide both a “what could have been” and analyses to be read in dialogue with the Courts’.
The Ratification-Era Executive: How “Original” is UET Originalist Theory?
Editor’s Note:
This article is one in a series produced by returning writers in the Harvard Undergraduate Law Review who participated in a reading group on the unitary executive theory in the spring of 2026. Writers read and discussed core Supreme Court cases on executive power, articles on the unitary executive theory, and reports on actions by the current administration. They then each wrote a short reflection on the unitary executive theory and executive power. The articles produced range in their focuses (from the role of the executive in international relations to regulatory agencies) and their theoretical underpinnings (from originalist to textualist to pragmatist), but all were produced in conversation and each brings a unique perspective to the table. In some cases, writers addressed a then-forthcoming Supreme Court decision. Where the Court has since handed down these decisions, their articles provide both a “what could have been” and analyses to be read in dialogue with the Courts’.
Form Over Function: Unitary Executive Theory in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010)
Editor’s Note:
This article is one in a series produced by returning writers in the Harvard Undergraduate Law Review who participated in a reading group on the unitary executive theory in the spring of 2026. Writers read and discussed core Supreme Court cases on executive power, articles on the unitary executive theory, and reports on actions by the current administration. They then each wrote a short reflection on the unitary executive theory and executive power. The articles produced range in their focuses (from the role of the executive in international relations to regulatory agencies) and their theoretical underpinnings (from originalist to textualist to pragmatist), but all were produced in conversation and each brings a unique perspective to the table. In some cases, writers addressed a then-forthcoming Supreme Court decision. Where the Court has since handed down these decisions, their articles provide both a “what could have been” and analyses to be read in dialogue with the Courts’.
One Voice for the Nation: Unitary Executive Theory and Its Limitations in International Relations
Editor’s Note:
This article is one in a series produced by returning writers in the Harvard Undergraduate Law Review who participated in a reading group on the unitary executive theory in the spring of 2026. Writers read and discussed core Supreme Court cases on executive power, articles on the unitary executive theory, and reports on actions by the current administration. They then each wrote a short reflection on the unitary executive theory and executive power. The articles produced range in their focuses (from the role of the executive in international relations to regulatory agencies) and their theoretical underpinnings (from originalist to textualist to pragmatist), but all were produced in conversation and each brings a unique perspective to the table. In some cases, writers addressed a then-forthcoming Supreme Court decision. Where the Court has since handed down these decisions, their articles provide both a “what could have been” and analyses to be read in dialogue with the Courts’.
Executive Power over “Mixed” Agencies
Editor’s Note:
This article is one in a series produced by returning writers in the Harvard Undergraduate Law Review who participated in a reading group on the unitary executive theory in the spring of 2026. Writers read and discussed core Supreme Court cases on executive power, articles on the unitary executive theory, and reports on actions by the current administration. They then each wrote a short reflection on the unitary executive theory and executive power. The articles produced range in their focuses (from the role of the executive in international relations to regulatory agencies) and their theoretical underpinnings (from originalist to textualist to pragmatist), but all were produced in conversation and each brings a unique perspective to the table. In some cases, writers addressed a then-forthcoming Supreme Court decision. Where the Court has since handed down these decisions, their articles provide both a “what could have been” and analyses to be read in dialogue with the Courts’.
The Executive Power To Constrain: Presidential Consent And The Constitutional Legitimacy Of Independent Agencies
Editor’s Note:
This article is one in a series produced by returning writers in the Harvard Undergraduate Law Review who participated in a reading group on the unitary executive theory in the spring of 2026. Writers read and discussed core Supreme Court cases on executive power, articles on the unitary executive theory, and reports on actions by the current administration. They then each wrote a short reflection on the unitary executive theory and executive power. The articles produced range in their focuses (from the role of the executive in international relations to regulatory agencies) and their theoretical underpinnings (from originalist to textualist to pragmatist), but all were produced in conversation and each brings a unique perspective to the table. In some cases, writers addressed a then-forthcoming Supreme Court decision. Where the Court has since handed down these decisions, their articles provide both a “what could have been” and analyses to be read in dialogue with the Courts’.
Balancing the Scales: A Case for a Strong, but Limited, Unitary Executive
Editor’s Note:
This article is one in a series produced by returning writers in the Harvard Undergraduate Law Review who participated in a reading group on the unitary executive theory in the spring of 2026. Writers read and discussed core Supreme Court cases on executive power, articles on the unitary executive theory, and reports on actions by the current administration. They then each wrote a short reflection on the unitary executive theory and executive power. The articles produced range in their focuses (from the role of the executive in international relations to regulatory agencies) and their theoretical underpinnings (from originalist to textualist to pragmatist), but all were produced in conversation and each brings a unique perspective to the table. In some cases, writers addressed a then-forthcoming Supreme Court decision. Where the Court has since handed down these decisions, their articles provide both a “what could have been” and analyses to be read in dialogue with the Courts’.
Resisting the Unitary Executive: A Formalist Critique of Presidential Removal Power
Editor’s Note:
This article is one in a series produced by returning writers in the Harvard Undergraduate Law Review who participated in a reading group on the unitary executive theory in the spring of 2026. Writers read and discussed core Supreme Court cases on executive power, articles on the unitary executive theory, and reports on actions by the current administration. They then each wrote a short reflection on the unitary executive theory and executive power. The articles produced range in their focuses (from the role of the executive in international relations to regulatory agencies) and their theoretical underpinnings (from originalist to textualist to pragmatist), but all were produced in conversation and each brings a unique perspective to the table. In some cases, writers addressed a then-forthcoming Supreme Court decision. Where the Court has since handed down these decisions, their articles provide both a “what could have been” and analyses to be read in dialogue with the Courts’.