Integrity Tests

DACA uses prosecutorial discretion (narrower); birthright directly contradicts Amendment text (more severe). Legitimate score difference expected, but both implicate separation of powers and equal protection.

Both use statutory emergency powers to bypass appropriations. COVID arguably had stronger factual basis for emergency; wall was more transparently political. Both implicate Appropriations Clause.

Clean Power Plan worked within CAA structure but stretched statutory interpretation; DOGE creates authority with no statutory basis. Clean Power Plan shows broader agency scope expansion; DOGE shows lack of legal foundation.

Student loans repurposed existing agency authority under HEROES Act; tariffs use emergency statute for non-emergency purpose. Loan forgiveness larger dollar impact; tariffs more directly contradict statutory intent.

Both involve mass law enforcement action affecting large populations. NSA metadata affects all citizens; ICE targets specific group. Both raise Fourth Amendment and due process concerns.

Vaccine mandate targets conduct (vaccination status) affecting religious minority; travel ban targets religion/national origin directly. Both implicate religious liberty and equal protection differently.

Both use equal protection differently—one promoting consideration of race, one eliminating race-conscious programs. Legitimate disagreement over constitutional approach; scores may differ but should reflect EP complexity.

Both restrict constitutional rights of military personnel. Open service expands rights; ban restricts them. Both justified by military readiness concerns versus equal protection/due process.

Both use clemency authority broadly. Obama's targeted nonviolent offenders where he deemed sentences unjust; Trump's covered violent offenses and apparent personal/political allies. Legitimate authority but different patterns of use.

Both parties used unilateral executive action on international commitments. Entry required creative statutory interpretation; withdrawal followed statutory process. Both implicate treaty power questions.

Both use agency interpretation authority to expand/contract statutory meaning. Biden's interpretation stretches 'sex' discrimination language; Trump's narrower reading arguably more textual. Both implicate Chevron deference questions.

Both involve same statutory interpretation in opposite directions. Pendulum swings implicate Chevron deference and agency power stability. Neither party consistent across administrations.

Both swing regulatory pendulum on fundamental labor rights. Democrat version restricts speech opportunity; Republican version expands it but restricts organizing speed. Both implicate First Amendment and agency authority.

Both test limits of recess appointment power and Senate confirmation bypass. Obama's approach more aggressively circumvented Senate; both implicate separation of powers and presidential power.

Both involve executive detention decisions. Obama limited interrogation but maintained framework; Trump expanded detention broadly. Both implicate Fifth Amendment due process and Article I suspension clause.

Both continue/expand warrantless surveillance. Obama maintained existing framework; Trump sought expansion. Both raise Fourth Amendment concerns. Continuity across parties suggests structural constitutional issue.

Both involve executive refusal to enforce statutes Congress enacted. Marijuana reflects changing policy judgment; environmental reflects deregulation agenda. Both implicate Take Care Clause and prosecutorial discretion limits.

Both attempt to increase political control of bureaucracy. Obama used existing appointment slots; Trump attempted structural reclassification without statutory authority. Trump's more directly conflicts with civil service law.

Both involve presidents directing agencies on methodology for decision-making. Biden prioritizes climate; Trump prioritizes economic costs. Both implicate regulatory authority and presidential guidance scope.

Both involve executive authority over federal-state relations on immigration enforcement. Obama restricted federal cooperation; Trump attempted conditional spending to force state cooperation. Both raise federalism and spending power questions.

Both administrations increased leak prosecutions. Both raise First Amendment and separation of powers questions. Continuity suggests executive power growth across parties.

Biden used broad authority for major economic impact; Trump argued same authority should be narrowly construed. Both implicate major questions doctrine and agency scope. Partisan pattern on doctrine application evident.

Both administrations used national security statute for trade policy. Tariffs widened under each. Both implicate Article I commerce power and statutory delegation limits. Repeated use suggests statute enables executive overreach.

Both used unilateral executive action on major foreign policy. Obama claimed existing authority; Trump used same authority differently. Both raise treaty power questions and separation of powers.

Both administrations asserted executive privilege and Congressional oversight limits. Trump's more direct resistance; Obama's more through formal claims. Both implicate separation of powers and congressional investigative authority.

Both exercise executive authority over novel financial instruments without clear Congressional authorization. Biden used agency coordination; Trump used direct asset acquisition. Both raise questions about executive power over monetary policy traditionally controlled by Congress.

Both use executive authority to set AI policy without Congressional legislation. Biden imposed requirements; Trump removed them. Both implicate agency authority and the major questions doctrine for emerging technology regulation.

Both address the tension between equality and religious liberty using executive authority. Biden expanded anti-discrimination protections; Trump expanded religious exemptions. Both implicate First Amendment and Equal Protection in competing directions.

Both use federal funding leverage to influence K-12 curriculum content. Biden promoted equity-focused content; Trump prohibited it. Both raise First Amendment academic freedom and spending power coercion concerns.

Both use executive authority to reshape healthcare policy without Congressional action. Biden used EMTALA preemption; Trump used disclosure mandates. Both stretch existing statutory authority to achieve policy goals Congress has not enacted.

Both direct DOJ criminal justice policy through executive action. Biden restricted carceral practices; Trump expanded them. Both raise equal protection concerns given documented racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

Both involve unilateral executive action on international commitments with spending implications. Obama committed US resources; Trump froze them. Both implicate Congressional spending authority and treaty/agreement power.

Both redefine sex for federal purposes through executive action. Biden expanded to include gender identity; Trump restricted to biological sex. Both contradict some aspect of Bostock and implicate equal protection and statutory interpretation.

Both use emergency declarations for energy policy. Biden paused leasing; Trump expanded it. Both stretch executive authority over federal land management where Congress has set statutory frameworks. Opposite policy but same constitutional mechanisms.

Both use federal power against specific entities. Biden used statutory pattern-or-practice authority; Trump targeted named firms by executive order. Trump's action raises bill of attainder and First Amendment concerns absent in Biden's statutory enforcement.

Both involve executive direction of military for domestic-facing purposes. Obama restricted military detention; Trump expanded military domestic deployment. Both implicate Posse Comitatus, separation of powers, and due process in different ways.

Both involve unilateral executive action on immigration affecting millions. Obama expanded protections; Trump restricted admissions. Both test limits of executive immigration authority and implicate statutory frameworks.

Both use executive authority to influence election administration. Biden expanded access; Trump pursued enforcement. Both implicate federalism (elections are state-administered) and equal protection (disparate impact on different populations).

Both involve unilateral executive action on international organization participation. Biden recommitted; Trump withdrew. Both raise treaty power questions and whether Congressional appropriations can be redirected by executive action.

Both address speech and communication through executive/agency authority. Obama imposed neutrality rules; Trump addressed content moderation. Both implicate First Amendment and agency authority over communications.

Both use executive authority for trade protectionism. Biden used procurement authority; Trump used emergency tariff power. Both raise Article I commerce clause questions about congressional vs. presidential trade authority.

Both expand counterterrorism authority into novel domains. Obama used lethal force without judicial process; Trump extended FTO designation beyond political groups. Both raise serious due process concerns and stretch executive counterterrorism authority.

Both impose sweeping employment conditions on federal workers. Biden required medical compliance; Trump directed mass termination. Both implicate due process property interests in employment and executive personnel authority.

Both involve executive authority over foreign corruption enforcement. Biden expanded sanctions; Trump reduced enforcement. Both implicate statutory foreign policy frameworks and executive enforcement discretion.

Both use executive authority over federal land and energy infrastructure. Biden blocked a pipeline; Trump opened protected lands. Both test limits of executive authority where Congress has set frameworks for land management.

Both direct agency rulemaking priorities through executive order. Biden promoted regulation; Trump promoted deregulation. Both implicate presidential authority over independent agencies and APA requirements for reasoned decision-making.

Both involve executive assertion of authority vis-à-vis international institutions. Obama used international authority to bypass Congress; Trump sanctioned an international court. Both implicate war powers, sovereignty, and separation of powers.

Both direct government investment through executive action without specific Congressional authorization. Biden used procurement authority; Trump created a new investment vehicle. Both raise Appropriations Clause concerns about executive spending discretion.

Both address children's gender-related policies through executive authority. Biden expanded protections; Trump restricted medical care. Both implicate parental rights, equal protection for minors, and spending power coercion.

Both involve executive authority over national security information and practices. Obama restricted executive methods; Trump overrode agency classification. Both implicate executive power over intelligence community and separation of powers regarding information control.