The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
DACA, ACA, FCPA
Prosecutorial discretion comes full circle.
In June 2012, the Obama Administration announced the policy that became known as DACA. Several days later, Justice Scalia lambasted that policy while announcing his Arizona v. United States dissent. He charged that it "has come to pass and is with us today . . . a federal government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written." Over the next several years, President Obama routinely suspended enforcement of various mandates under the Affordable Care Act.
I often sounded a lonely note that these actions were unlawful, and set a dangerous precedent. Yet, the constant refrain was that the President had discretion, and these actions were within the law. I replied that this power of non-enforcement was far more dangerous in the hands of a conservative president. After all, progressives tend to like more law, while conservatives favor less law.
And so it has come to pass. President Trump signed an executive order pausing enforcement of prosecutions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA):
For a period of 180 days following the date of this order, the Attorney General shall review guidelines and policies governing investigations and enforcement actions under the FCPA. During the review period, the Attorney General shall:
(i) cease initiation of any new FCPA investigations or enforcement actions, unless the Attorney General determines that an individual exception should be made;
To be clear, this is not a total suspension of the law. The Attorney General retains the discretion to make exceptions to the Presidents order. Though as a practical matter, I would be surprised if any new FCPA actions are initiated over the next six months.
What is the justification to halt enforcement of this law? Trump alludes to his Article II power over foreign affairs.
Purpose and Policy. Since its enactment in 1977, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 78dd-1 et seq.) (FCPA) has been systematically, and to a steadily increasing degree, stretched beyond proper bounds and abused in a manner that harms the interests of the United States. Current FCPA enforcement impedes the United States' foreign policy objectives and therefore implicates the President's Article II authority over foreign affairs.
The President's foreign policy authority is inextricably linked with the global economic competitiveness of American companies. American national security depends in substantial part on the United States and its companies gaining strategic business advantages whether in critical minerals, deep-water ports, or other key infrastructure or assets.
But overexpansive and unpredictable FCPA enforcement against American citizens and businesses — by our own Government — for routine business practices in other nations not only wastes limited prosecutorial resources that could be dedicated to preserving American freedoms, but actively harms American economic competitiveness and, therefore, national security.
It is therefore the policy of my Administration to preserve the Presidential authority to conduct foreign affairs and advance American economic and national security by eliminating excessive barriers to American commerce abroad.
During all of the debates over DACA and ACA, President Obama never invoked any sort of Article II power. To the extent he was relying on discretion, it had to be granted by statute. Here, Trump connects his opposition to FCPA prosecutions with his approach to foreign affairs.
DACA, ACA, FCPA. Prosecutorial discretion comes full circle.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Phrases not actually found in Article II of the constitution: "national security." "foreign policy."
Or "controlling entry into the country", to listen to half of the posters on this blog's masthead.
So? The other day, you complained when I pointed out that Martinned made up a quote, on the basis that a supposedly equivalent meaning was there. Why are you always such a hypocrite?
I don't have any idea what you're referring to. (Or how it's relevant to this discussion. The constitution doesn't have any phrases with equivalent meanings either.)
I agree Mr. Trump has the constitutional authority to do this. BUT…
“The dicks took their end without a beef. And it really stunk, kid. No sense being a grifter if it’s the same as being a citizen.”
— Henry Gondorff, The Sting
"I replied that this power of non-enforcement was far more dangerous in the hands of a conservative president."
Not seeing you concerned now. Trump isn't that "conservative" in various respects but still.
The immigration laws "as written" give much discretion and it is necessary given their breadth.
As with the ACA, a problem is that Congress (there the filibuster caused problems from the start when 59 senators wasn't enough to clean up the bill & multiple people here ignored the real problem was Republicans refusing to grant the Democrats discretion to do so) did not pass new legislation to address the situation. Trump pushed Republicans to block a border bill.
A Republican trifecta is in place though Democrats can still filibuster in the Senate [how much they will remains to be seen]. Either way, especially in the modern state, the executive is going to have a lot of discretion.
One reason to not have a disqualified tyrant in place.
You will notice the absence of actual criticism of Trump
He said dangerous, not bad!
As someone who works in international business there is good and bad in the FCPA.
It is frustrating to see someone else get a deal that you should have gotten in probable return for a bribe that was quite small compared to deal value.
On the other hand, it is nice to be able to tell a corrupt asshole with his hand out "Sorry. I love you and will be eternally grateful for your help, but FCPA."
My preference would be to make it apply to any deal in which a US entity is competing in any role. So I could report a foreign company that I think paid a bribe when competing against me and get it's executives arrested if they ever enter the US, get them cut off from US banking system, etc.
If bribery is bad, and is endemic we should do what we can to stop it. Right now, we only seem to try to stop it by punishing those who do the bribing. Perhaps we should endeavor to punish countries where the corruption is tolerated. That is, impose sanctions on those countries for not policing their own, whether that be tariffs, forbidding government assistance, or financial penalties on leaders.
(Maybe we already do that, I don't know.)
one man's bribe is another man's culture.
Many countries' lower level officials' salaries are quite low. They are expected to make a living from baksheesh.
There's actually an exception in the FCPA for "facilitation payments" — that is, if the standard practice in a country is for a clerk to be given a bribe just to get them to do their jobs, then you're allowed to pay them to do it. It only applies to ministerial things like issuing automatic permits or the like — not for winning contracts or such where the person being bribed has discretion.
We routinely condition foreign aid on countries taking steps to reduce corruption. But that's on the theory that we don't want our foreign aid wasted. Otherwise, it's not really any of our concern.
It's dumb for the US to unilaterally refuse to bribe foreign governments when competing against China.
I also find it exceedingly unlikely that a business is going to start giving bribes, trusting that Trump won't use his discretion as leverage in the future.
Yes, but foreign companies are generally prohibited from bribing American legislators, unlike American companies.