Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶98

Much the same principle applied to executive officials. Often, “the legality of an executive action depended on the relationship between the size of the asserted power and the clarity of the underlying legal authority.” T. Arvind & C. Burset, Partisan Legal Traditions in the Age of Camden and Mansfeld, 44 Oxford J. Legal Studies 376, 388 (2024). En- tick v. Carrington, 19 How. St. Tr. 1029 (C. P. 1765), offers an illustration. There, as part of an investigation for seditious libel, the English Secretary of State claimed authority to issue a warrant for the seizure of an author's papers. Lord Camden declared the seizure unlawful, reasoning that power asserted by the executive “ought to be as clear as it is extensive.” T. Arvind & C. Burset, A New Report of En- tick v. Carrington (1765), 110 Ky. L. J. 265, 324 (2022) (Arvind & Burset). Or, as another reporter described Cam- den's…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.