Compiled by Sarah Willrich.
Articles
Can the Midterms Be ‘Stolen’ On Jan. 3? It’s Complicated.
Molly Roberts unpacked speculation about the “rogue clerk” scenario ahead of the midterms, wherein a House of Representatives clerk could manipulate which newly elected members could vote for speaker, who could then refuse to swear in members of the opposing party. Roberts argued that courts likely could intervene before such a scheme could take place—since the clerk’s roll-making duty is a ministerial one enforceable by mandamus—but the scenario still has the potential to sow chaos and is worth taking seriously.
Nonetheless, while a hypothetical rogue clerk may find it difficult to
singlehandedlyoverturn the democratic order, he still has plenty of opportunity to create chaos. Whether or not judicial intervention ultimately arrived in any dispute, the members-elect of the party from whom the majority was being improperly wrested would surely object to an incorrect roll. At that point, considering multiple claimants for contested seats would presumably show up to work on Jan. 3, the proto-House of Representatives would have to vote on who should be allowed to vote for speaker. This would likely result in a vote on who should be allowed to vote on who should be allowed to vote for speaker, and so on—with the chamber descending into a parliamentary vortex.
The Federal Trade Commission After Trump v. Slaughter
J.B. Branch argued that the *Slaughter *decision, which made it easier for the president to remove appointed officials, incentivizes Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners to align more closely with the president. Branch highlighted artificial intelligence (AI) regulation as an area where that shift in incentives is likely to prove consequential. For example, he pointed to the FTC’s proposed AI Policy Statement, which can be interpreted to preempt state AI laws, aligning with the administration’s broader AI policy and expanding executive power.
Those judgments will inevitably require substantial policymaking discretion. As
Slaughterstrengthens presidential influence over the commission, future FTCs may become more willing to interpret Section 5 expansively, align enforcement priorities with broader presidential initiatives, advance nationally uniform approaches to technology regulation, and test the boundaries of federal authority in areas where Congress has spoken only in general terms. They may also increasingly assert positions that reshape the relationship between federal and state regulation, particularly where the White House views divergent state approaches as obstacles to White House priorities—especially national economic priorities.
Podcasts
Lawfare Daily: Trump, Kim, and the Future of Korea: Daniel Byman sat down with Andrew Yeo to talk about Trump’s decision to engage in talks with North Korea’s leader while curtailing military exercises with South Korea. They discussed what might be expected from negotiations with North Korea, how Seoul perceives Trump’s policy changes, and how curtailing military exercises will affect South Korean and U.S. capabilities.
Scaling Laws: AI Consciousness with Anil Seth: Anil Seth joined Kevin Frazier to examine whether AI could ever be conscious. Drawing on Seth’s recent essay, they attempted to define consciousness, develop arguments for and against machine consciousness, assess what the current evidence can and cannot tell us, and what it all means for policymakers and users.
*Support *Lawfare
*Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and LinkedIn. Become a material supporter on Patreon. Sign up to receive *Lawfare
