The Constitutional Truth At The Heart Of The DOGE Cases
Mar 8, 2025
auto_awesome
In this engaging conversation, Kate Shaw, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and co-host of the Strict Scrutiny podcast, dives into the constitutional chaos surrounding Elon Musk's DOGE initiative. She discusses the murky legality of Musk's actions, government efficiency, and the complexities of executive appointments. Shaw also unpacks the legal labyrinth affecting the Justice Department's approach to Dogecoin, highlighting the critical role of constitutional principles in maintaining accountability during tumultuous times.
The establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency under Elon Musk raises serious constitutional legitimacy concerns about governance and accountability.
Critics highlight how Musk's concentration of power exemplifies a shift toward a unitary executive model, undermining established separation of powers.
Ongoing litigation against Doge underscores the significance of traditional appointment processes and the potential legal ramifications of unconventional executive authority.
Deep dives
The Role of Doge in Government Efficiency
Doge, the newly established Department of Government Efficiency headed by Elon Musk, has been identified as a controversial entity operating without clear constitutional legitimacy. The podcast discusses how this organization is purportedly influencing government operations and making decisions that would typically require formal appointments and oversight. Critics argue that this structure undermines established protocols for appointing officials, allowing Musk to effectively wield significant power without the appropriate checks and balances. The ambiguity surrounding the nature and authority of Doge raises fundamental questions about governance and accountability in the executive branch.
Concerns Over Executive Power Concentration
There is a growing concern about the concentration of power in the hands of unaccountable individuals like Elon Musk, who is described as having immense influence over government decisions. This situation exemplifies a shift toward a unitary executive model, where power is centralized and accountability is diminished. The podcast highlights historical warnings against such concentrations of authority, emphasizing the need for a clear separation of powers to protect democracy. Listeners are encouraged to reflect on the implications of allowing unelected officials to control significant governmental functions.
Appointment Clauses and Constitutional Accountability
The discussion surrounding the appointments clause underscores the constitutional principle that government officials must be appointed through legitimate and transparent processes. The podcast elaborates on how current legal arguments question whether Elon Musk and his associates are operating within the bounds of the Constitution. Observers are particularly interested in the legal ramifications of appointments made outside traditional frameworks, which could set serious precedents for executive authority. This issue raises critical questions about the legitimacy of actions taken by improperly appointed officials.
Judicial Response to Potential Overreach
The podcast elaborates on ongoing litigation challenging the authority of Doge and the influence of Elon Musk over federal decisions. Various lawsuits are being brought forth by individuals and groups affected by Musk's actions, aiming to establish that much of what Doge is doing is unconstitutional. The courts are faced with determining the extent of executive power while ensuring that constitutional safeguards are upheld. Judges are showing skepticism towards the arrangements and are likely to issue rulings that could rein in excesses of executive power.
Public Sentiment and Constitutional Principles
Listeners are reminded of the underlying public awareness regarding the dangers of unchecked executive power, particularly in the context of the current political landscape. Many citizens intuitively understand that sovereignty rests with the people, and that significant authority should not be relegated to unelected officials. The podcast emphasizes that there is growing public sentiment against the normalization of individuals like Musk exerting substantial control over government functions. This recognition of constitutional principles among the public serves as a necessary counterweight to potential abuses of power.
Elon Musk’s moves at DOGE have been legally dubious from the start. And the more we learn, the more questions we have about this not-an-agency helmed by Musk –– who is apparently both in charge, and also not in charge. That’s why we wanted to talk with Kate Shaw, University of Pennsylvania law professor and co-host of the Strict Scrutiny podcast, about the very real constitutional issues raised by DOGE and Musk and his minions. Shaw spoke with Dahlia Lithwick about what is and isn’t legal about DOGE, and the impossible bind that creates for government lawyers tasked with defending his devastation of the government.
Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.