Legal scholar Orin Kerr notes that Obama’s decision to not defend DOMA may lead to unintended consequences :
If the Obama Administration wont defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act , what are the chances that a future Republican administration would defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate? To my mind, this adds a very interesting wrinkle to the individual mandate litigation (and, more broadly, to the role of the Executive Branch in defending statutes in the future).
In a later post, Kerr considers the ” executive power grab ” in more detail:
By taking that position, the Obama Administration has moved the goalposts of the usual role of the Executive branch in defending statutes. Instead of requiring DOJ to defend the constitutionality of all federal statutes if it has a reasonable basis to do so, the new approach invests within DOJ a power to conduct an independent constitutional review of the issues, to decide the main issues in the case in this case, the degree of scrutiny for gay rights issues and then, upon deciding the main issue, to decide if there is a reasonable basis for arguing the other side. If you take that view, the Executive Branch essentially has the power to decide what legislation it will defend based on whatever views of the Constitution are popular or associated with that Administration. It changes the role of the Executive branch in defending litigation from the traditional dutiful servant of Congress to major institutional player with a great deal of discretion.
If that approach becomes widely adopted, then it would seem to bring a considerable power shift to the Executive Branch. Heres what I fear will happen. If Congress passes legislation on a largely party-line vote, the losing side just has to fashion some constitutional theories for why the legislation is unconstitutional and then wait for its side to win the Presidency. As soon as its side wins the Presidency, activists on its side can file constitutional challenges based on the theories; the Executive branch can adopt the theories and conclude that, based on the theories, the legislation is unconstitutional; and then the challenges to the legislation will go undefended. Winning the Presidency will come with a great deal of power to decide what legislation to defend, increasing Executive branch power at the expense of Congresss power. Again, it will be a power grab disguised as academic constitutional interpretation.