Uniform Interpretation of Law

I think this just puts into "regulation" what has been a long standing practice. The DoJ Office of Legal Counsel has traditionally resolved disputes between agencies regarding the interpretation of law. OLC does not do this on its own but at the request of the agencies involved. However, the opinion of OLC has merely been advisory and not binding. It appears that now it will be binding.

The E.O. reflects the concept of the "unitary executive," which has been explained as follows:

It is a bracingly simple idea. Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution vests the executive power in “a president of the United States.” Those words do not seem ambiguous. Under the Constitution, the President, and no one else, has executive power. The executive is therefore “unitary.” It follows, as the night follows the day, that Congress lacks the power to carve up the executive—to say, for example, that the Secretary of Transportation is a free agent, immune from presidential control, or that the Secretary of Commerce can maintain their job unless the President is able to establish some kind of “cause” for removing them.

Footnote omitted.

See The Unitary Executive: Past, Present, and Future, by Sunstein and Vermeule (2020). https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/714860

See also, The Unitary Presidency, Dodds (2019).

And The Unitary Executive: Presidential Power From Washington to Bush, Calabresi and Yoo (2012).

Presidential Management of the Administrative State: The Not-So-Unitary Executive, 51 Duke L.J. 963 (2001-2002).

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1148&context=dlj

Of course, what happens when Federal Court case law contradicts an Executive Branch interpretation of the law? That will have to be adjudicated between the President and/or Attorney General and the Judiciary, won’t it?

The XO’s stated intent, “Therefore, in order to improve the administration of the executive branch and to increase regulatory officials’ accountability to the American people,” is highly desirable.

Does it accomplish this intent?

So a simple reading of the EO would require that the Attorney General or President must review the government’s preliminary position advanced on every protest, or contract claim or REA involving application of contract or case law?

joel hoffman said:

Of course, what happens when Federal Court case law contradicts an Executive Branch interpretation of the law? That will have to be adjudicated between the President and/or Attorney General and the Judiciary, won’t it?

Or what happens if an executive branch interpretation is rejected by a court in a future decision? Does the executive branch wait to hear from the President/Attorney General that they have changed their interpretation?

Don Mansfield said:

Or what happens if an executive branch interpretation is rejected by a court in a future decision? Does the executive branch wait to hear from the President/Attorney General that they have changed their interpretation?

Not necessarily. But if the president or attorney general wants to provide interpretive guidance or direction it may come in an executive order or a document such as this one, from the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel: The Test for Determining “Officer” Status Under the Appointments Clause, January 16, 2025

https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1385406/dl

Or this one: Application of the Randolph-Sheppard Act to the United States Mint, September 9, 2024,

https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1377031/dl