The American Law Institute (ALI) was established in 1923 to promote the clarification and simplification of American common law and its adaptation to changing social needs. The ALI drafts, approves, and publishes Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, model codes, and other proposals for law reform. The ALI is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, near the Drexel University Earle Mack School of Law and University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Creation of the Institute[link]

The American Law Institute was founded in 1923 on the initiative of William Draper Lewis, Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, following a study by a group of prominent American judges, lawyers, and teachers who sought to address the uncertain and complex nature of early 20th century American law. According to the "Committee on the Establishment of a Permanent Organization for the Improvement of the Law," part of the law's uncertainty stemmed from the lack of agreement on fundamental principles of the common-law system, while the law's complexity was attributed to the numerous variations within different jurisdictions. The Committee recommended that a perpetual society be formed to improve the law and the administration of justice in a scholarly and scientific manner.

The organization was incorporated on Friday, February 23, 1923, at a meeting called by the Committee in the auditorium of Memorial Continental Hall in Washington, D.C. According to ALI's Certificate of Incorporation, its purpose is "to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to encourage and carry on scholarly and scientific legal work."

Membership[link]

Membership in the American Law Institute is limited to 4000 judges, lawyers, and legal scholars from a wide range of practice areas, from all areas of the United States and from many foreign countries. New members must be proposed by an existing member, who writes a letter of recommendation, and seconded by two others. Proposals are evaluated by a Membership Committee that selects members based on several factors, including professional achievement, personal character, and demonstrated interest in improving the law.

ALI members are obligated to actively support the work of the Institute, including attending Annual Meetings and other project conferences, joining Members Consultative Groups for Institute projects, and submitting comments on project drafts. Members are asked to write, speak, and vote on the basis of their own personal and professional convictions, without regard to client interests, so as to maintain ALI’s respected reputation for thoughtful and impartial analysis.

Governance[link]

The Institute is governed by its Council, a volunteer board of directors that oversees the management of ALI’s business and projects. Having no fewer than 42 and no more than 65 members, the Council consists of lawyers, judges, and academics, and reflects a broad range of specialties and experiences. Council members are elected from the Institute membership for a term of five years, and can be renominated for an additional two terms. Under the current rules, a Council member can request emeritus status upon reaching 70 years of age; for having served on the council for at least ten consecutive years; or for having served for three terms in total. The ALI Council ordinarily meets in May, October, and January, as of 2011.

ALI Officers[link]

With the exception of its Director and Deputy Director, the Institute’s officers are volunteers. Elected by the Council, officers include President, Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary, Director and Deputy Director.

ALI Presidents[link]

• George W. Wickersham (1923–1936)
• George Wharton Pepper (1936–1947)
• Harrison Tweed (1947–1961)
• Norris Darrell (1961–1976)
• R. Ammi Cutter (1976–1980)
• Roswell B. Perkins (1980–1993)
• Charles Alan Wright (1993–2000)
• Michael Traynor (2000–2008)
• Roberta Cooper Ramo (2008–present)

ALI Directors[link]

• William Draper Lewis (1923–1947)
• Herbert Funk Goodrich (1947–1962)
• Herbert Wechsler (1963–1984)
• Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. (1984–1999)
• Lance Liebman (1999–present)

Restatements of the Law[link]

The Institute's first endeavor upon formation was a comprehensive restatement of basic legal subjects that would inform judges and lawyers what the law was. This effort produced what ALI is best known for: the Restatement of the Law. Between 1923 and 1944, Restatements of the Law were developed for Agency, Conflict of Laws, Contracts, Judgments, Property, Restitution, Security, Torts, and Trusts. In 1952, the Institute started Restatement Second — updates of the original Restatements with new analyses and concepts with and expanded authorities. A Restatement on Foreign Relations Law of the United States was also undertaken.

The third series of Restatements was started in 1987 with a new Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. The Restatement Third now includes volumes on Agency, the Law Governing Lawyers, Property (Mortgages, Servitudes, Wills and Other Donative Transfers), Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, Suretyship and Guaranty, Torts (Products Liability, Apportionment of Liability, and Physical and Emotional Harm), and Unfair Competition. New Restatement projects on Economic Torts, Employment Law, Trusts, and the U.S. Law of International Commercial Arbitration are currently underway as part of the Restatement Third series.

Restatements are essentially codifications of case law, common law judge-made doctrines that develop gradually over time because of the principle of stare decisis. Although Restatements are not binding authority in and of themselves, they are highly persuasive because they are formulated over several years with extensive input from law professors, practicing attorneys, and judges. They are meant to reflect the consensus of the American legal community as to what the law is (and in some areas, what it should become). All told, the Restatement of the Law is one of the most respected and well-used sources of secondary authority, covering nearly every area of common law.

Principles of the Law[link]

Beginning with the Principles of Corporate Governance (issued in 1994), the American Law Institute has more recently undertaken intensive studies of areas of law thought to need reform. This type of analysis typically results in a publication that recommends changes in the law. Principles of the Law issued so far include volumes on Aggregate Litigation (2010), Family Dissolution (2002), Intellectual Property (2008), Software Contracts (2010), Transnational Civil Procedure (2006; cosponsored by UNIDROIT), and Transnational Insolvency: Cooperation Among the NAFTA Countries (2003). Work in the Principles of the Law series continues with projects covering Nonprofit Organizations, Government Ethics, and other topics.

Model Codifications[link]

Another important area of the Institute's work is model statutory codification. ALI code projects have included model acts dealing with air flight, criminal procedure, evidence, federal securities law, land development, pre-arraignment procedure, and property. Some of these projects were undertaken jointly with the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL).

The chief joint ALI-NCCUSL project is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which the Institute has been developing and revising with the National Conference since the 1940s. First published in 1952, the UCC is one of a number of uniform acts that have been promulgated in conjunction with efforts to harmonize the law of sales and other commercial transactions in all 50 states within the United States of America. The Uniform Commercial Code is generally viewed as one of the most important developments in American law, having been enacted (with local adaptations) in almost every jurisdiction.

The Model Penal Code (MPC) is another ALI statutory formulation that has been widely accepted throughout the United States. Adopted by the Institute membership in 1962 after twelve years of drafting and development, the Code's purpose was to stimulate and assist legislatures in making an effort to update and standardize the penal law of the United States. Primary responsibility for criminal law lies with the individual states, and such national efforts work to produce similar laws in different jurisdictions. The standard they used to make a determination of what the penal code should be was one of "contemporary reasoned judgment" — meaning what a reasoned person at the time of the development of the MPC would judge the penal law to do. The Chief Reporter for this undertaking was Herbert Wechsler, who later became a Director of the Institute.

A current ALI project is working to revise the Model Penal Code's sentencing provisions in light of the many changes in sentencing philosophy and practice that have taken place since the Code was developed in the 1950s and 1960s.

Other ALI Work[link]

The American Law Institute has also worked over the years on studies and other proposals dealing with complex litigation, criminal law, enterprise responsibility, federal estate and gift taxation, federal income taxation, federal judicial code revision, and the division of jurisdiction between federal and state courts.

One particularly interesting ALI project was the Statement of Essential Human Rights. In response to reports of human rights atrocities during World War II, the Institute in 1942 appointed a committee of lawyers and political scientists, supposedly representing the principle cultures of the world, to compile a list of agreed-upon individual rights: an international bill of rights. The committee reported to the ALI Council in February 1944. Although the project was never presented for a vote by the ALI membership, the Statement of Essential Human Rights was published in 1945 by the Americans United for World Organizations, Inc., independently of the Institute. Along with other sources, the Statement was then used to prepare the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the General Assembly adopted on December 10, 1948.

How the Institute Works[link]

The basic approach and format of all American Law Institute publications is similar. ALI undertakes a project only upon the careful consideration and approval of its Officers and Council. A methodical process then follows:

• An expert in the field of law, usually a legal scholar, is designated as Reporter. With the help of assistants, the Reporter does the basic research and prepares material.

• An initial draft is submitted for suggestions and revisions to a small group of Advisers—judges, lawyers, and law teachers—with special knowledge of the subject. In most projects, the draft is also reviewed by a group of ALI members with a particular interest in the topic.

• The revised draft is next submitted for additional analysis and consideration to the ALI Council, a body of some 70 prominent judges, practicing lawyers, and law teachers. The draft can then be referred either to the Reporter and Advisers for further review or to the general ALI membership.

• When approved by the Council, the draft is presented as a Tentative Draft to an Annual Meeting of the entire membership for debate and discussion. The membership may approve the draft, subject to revisions, or refer it back to the Reporter and Advisers. A series of Tentative Drafts is produced in this way over a number of years.

• A Proposed Final Draft consisting of all prior Tentative Drafts as modified by membership action may then be submitted to the Council and the membership. When the project has been approved by both, an official text is published.

The final product thus reflects the review and criticism of experienced members of the bench, bar, and academia. The process many take many years, and it is not unusual for a single Restatement of the law project to take over twenty years to complete.

ALI-ABA Continuing Professional Education[link]

In 1946, the American Bar Association asked the American Law Institute to collaborate in organizing a national program of continuing legal education (CLE) for practicing attorneys. The need to establish a permanent entity devoted to the continuing training of lawyers became apparent after the end of World War II, as young lawyers returning from years of military service overseas found that they needed refresher courses in the law. Furthermore, the huge complex of government regulations that had begun with the New Deal and had greatly expanded during the war years provided another impetus for the post-admission education of all lawyers, whether or not they were veterans.

The governing bodies of ALI and ABA approved a Memorandum of Understanding in 1947 that created a "Committee on Continuing Education of the Bar of the American Law Institute Collaborating with the American Bar Association," comprising representatives from both organizations. Initial work focused on producing a series of CLE publications for a national audience and on encouraging and assisting state and local bar groups to establish and conduct their own programs of continuing legal education.

Since then, ALI-ABA has expanded its activities from book and electronic publishing to national courses of study, teleseminar and webcasting presentations, and various other innovative CLE delivery methods. ALI-ABA also publishes several periodicals, including The Practical Lawyer (est. 1955), The Practical Litigator, The Practical Real Estate Lawyer, The Practical Tax Lawyer, the ALI-ABA Business Planning Course Materials Journal, and the ALI-ABA Estate Planning Course Materials Journal.

See also[link]

• Model Penal Code
• Uniform Commercial Code

External links[link]

• The American Law Institute
• The American Law Institute Archives at the University of Pennsylvania Law School
• ALI-ABA Continuing Professional Education
• National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
• American Bar Association

The United States Constitution, the supreme law of the United States

The United States Code, the codification of federal statutory law

The Code of Federal Regulations, the codification of federal administrative law

The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States

The law of the United States consists of many levels^[1] of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the United States Constitution, the foundation of the federal government of the United States. The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of constitutional acts of Congress, constitutional treaties ratified by Congress, constitutional regulations promulgated by the executive branch, and case law originating from the federal judiciary.

The Constitution and federal law are the supreme law of the land, thus preempting conflicting state and territorial laws in the fifty U.S. states and in the territories.^[2] However, the scope of federal preemption is limited, because the scope of federal power is itself rather limited. In the unique dual-sovereign system of American federalism (actually tripartite^[3] because of the presence of Indian reservations), states are the plenary sovereigns, while the federal sovereign possesses only the limited supreme authority enumerated in the Constitution.^[4] Indeed, states may grant their citizens broader rights than the federal Constitution as long as they do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights.^[5][6] Thus, most U.S. law (especially the actual "living law" of contract, tort, criminal, and family law experienced by the majority of citizens on a day-to-day basis) consists primarily of state law, which can and does vary greatly from one state to the next.^[7][8]

At both the federal and state levels, the law of the United States was originally largely derived from the common law system of English law, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War.^[9][10] However, U.S. law has diverged greatly from its English ancestor both in terms of substance and procedure, and has incorporated a number of civil law innovations.

General overview[link]

Sources of law[link]

In the United States, the law is derived from four sources. These four sources are constitutional law, statutory law, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law).^[11] The most important source of law is the United States Constitution. All other law falls under and are subordinate to that document. No law may contradict the Constitution..

Constitutionality[link]

Where Congress enacts a statute that conflicts with the Constitution, the Supreme Court may find that law unconstitutional and declare it invalid.^[12]

Notably, a statute does not disappear automatically merely because it has been found unconstitutional; it must be deleted by a subsequent statute. Many federal and state statutes have remained on the books for decades after they were ruled to be unconstitutional. However, under the principle of stare decisis, no sensible lower court will enforce an unconstitutional statute, and any court that does so will be reversed by the Supreme Court. Conversely, any court that refuses to enforce a constitutional statute (where such constitutionality has been expressly established in prior cases) will risk reversal by the Supreme Court.^[13][14]

American common law[link]

The United States and most Commonwealth countries are heirs to the common law legal tradition of English law.^[15] Certain practices traditionally allowed under English common law were expressly outlawed by the Constitution, such as bills of attainder^[16] and general search warrants.^[17]

As common law courts, U.S. courts have inherited the principle of stare decisis.^[18] American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases.^[19]

The actual substance of English law was formally "received" into the United States in several ways. First, all U.S. states except Louisiana have enacted "reception statutes" which generally state that the common law of England (particularly judge-made law) is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions.^[20] Some reception statutes impose a specific cutoff date for reception, such as the date of a colony's founding, while others are deliberately vague.^[21] Thus, contemporary U.S. courts often cite pre-Revolution cases when discussing the evolution of an ancient judge-made common law principle into its modern form,^[21] such as the heightened duty of care traditionally imposed upon common carriers.^[22]

Second, a small number of important British statutes in effect at the time of the Revolution have been independently reenacted by U.S. states. Two examples that many lawyers will recognize are the Statute of Frauds (still widely known in the U.S. by that name) and the Statute of 13 Elizabeth (the ancestor of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act). Such English statutes are still regularly cited in contemporary American cases interpreting their modern American descendants.^[23]

However, it is important to understand that despite the presence of reception statutes, much of contemporary American common law has diverged significantly from English common law.^[24] The reason is that although the courts of the various Commonwealth nations are often influenced by each other's rulings, American courts rarely follow post-Revolution Commonwealth rulings unless there is no American ruling on point, the facts and law at issue are nearly identical, and the reasoning is strongly persuasive.

Early on, American courts, even after the Revolution, often did cite contemporary English cases. This was because appellate decisions from many American courts were not regularly reported until the mid-19th century; lawyers and judges, as creatures of habit, used English legal materials to fill the gap.^[25] But citations to English decisions gradually disappeared during the 19th century as American courts developed their own principles to resolve the legal problems of the American people.^[26] The number of published volumes of American reports soared from eighteen in 1810 to over 8,000 by 1910.^[27] By 1879, one of the delegates to the California constitutional convention was already complaining: "Now, when we require them to state the reasons for a decision, we do not mean they shall write a hundred pages of detail. We [do] not mean that they shall include the small cases, and impose on the country all this fine judicial literature, for the Lord knows we have got enough of that already."^[28]

Today, in the words of Stanford law professor Lawrence Friedman: "American cases rarely cite foreign materials. Courts occasionally cite a British classic or two, a famous old case, or a nod to Blackstone; but current British law almost never gets any mention."^[29] Foreign law has never been cited as binding precedent, but merely as a reflection of the shared values of Anglo-American civilization or even Western civilization in general.^[30]

Levels of law[link]

Federal law[link]

Federal law originates with the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to enact statutes for certain limited purposes like regulating interstate commerce. Nearly all statutes have been codified in the United States Code. Many statutes give executive branch agencies the power to create regulations, which are published in the Federal Register and codified into the Code of Federal Regulations. Regulations generally also carry the force of law under the Chevron doctrine. Many lawsuits turn on the meaning of a federal statute or regulation, and judicial interpretations of such meaning carry legal force under the principle of stare decisis.

In the beginning, federal law traditionally focused on areas where there was an express grant of power to the federal government in the federal Constitution, like the military, money, foreign affairs (especially international treaties), tariffs, intellectual property (specifically patents and copyrights), and mail. Since the start of the 20th century, aggressive interpretations of the Commerce and Spending Clauses of the Constitution have enabled federal law to expand into areas like aviation, telecommunications, railroads, pharmaceuticals, antitrust, and trademarks. In some areas, like aviation and railroads, the federal government has developed a comprehensive scheme that preempts virtually all state law, while in others, like family law, a relatively small number of federal statutes (generally covering interstate and international situations) interacts with a much larger body of state law. In areas like antitrust, trademark, and employment law, there are powerful laws at both the federal and state levels that coexist with each other. In a handful of areas like insurance, Congress has enacted laws expressly refusing to regulate them as long as the states have laws regulating them (see, e.g., the McCarran-Ferguson Act).

Under the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), there is no general federal common law. Although federal courts can create federal common law in the form of case law, such law must be linked one way or another to the interpretation of a particular federal constitutional provision, statute, or regulation (which in turn was enacted as part of the Constitution or after). Federal courts lack the plenary power possessed by state courts to simply make up law, which the latter are able to do in the absence of constitutional or statutory provisions replacing the common law. Only in a few narrow limited areas, like maritime law,^[31] has the Constitution expressly authorized the continuation of English common law at the federal level (meaning that in those areas federal courts can continue to make law as they see fit, subject to the limitations of stare decisis).

The other major implication of the Erie doctrine is that federal courts cannot dictate the content of state law when there is no federal issue (and thus no federal supremacy issue) in a case. When hearing claims under state law pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, federal trial courts must apply the statutory and decisional law of the state in which they sit, as if they were a court of that state,^[32] even if they believe that the relevant state law is irrational or just bad public policy.^[33] And under Erie, deference is one-way only: state courts are not bound by federal interpretations of state law.^[34]

If this was not confusing enough, state courts are not bound to follow judicial interpretations of federal law from the federal courts that sit in a state, including federal courts of appeals and district courts (that is, the intermediate appellate courts and trial courts).^[35] There is only one federal court that binds all state courts as to the interpretation of federal law and the federal Constitution: the U.S. Supreme Court itself.^[36]

Federal statutory enactment and codification[link]

After the President signs a bill into law (or Congress enacts it over his veto), it is delivered to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) where it is assigned a law number, and prepared for publication as a slip law.^[37] Public laws, but not private laws, are also given legal statutory citation by the OFR. At the end of each session of Congress, the slip laws are compiled into bound volumes called the Statutes at Large, and they are known as session laws. The Statutes at Large present a chronological arrangement of the laws in the exact order that they have been enacted.

Public laws are incorporated into the United States Code, which is a codification of all general and permanent laws of the United States. The main edition is published every six years by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives, and cumulative supplements are published annually.^[38][39] The U.S. Code is arranged by subject matter, and it shows the present status of laws with amendments already incorporated in the text that have been amended on one or more occasions.

Federal regulatory promulgation and codification[link]

Congress often enacts statutes that grant broad rulemaking authority to federal agencies. Often, Congress is simply too gridlocked to draft detailed statutes that explain how the agency should react to every possible situation, or Congress believes the agency's technical specialists are best equipped to deal with particular fact situations as they arise. Therefore, federal agencies are authorized to promulgate regulations. Under the principle of Chevron deference, regulations normally carry the force of law as long as they are based on a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statutes.

Regulations are adopted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. Regulations are first proposed and published in the Federal Register (FR or Fed. Reg.) and subject to a public comment period. Eventually, after a period for public comment and revisions based on comments received, a final version is published in the Federal Register. The regulations are codified and incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which is published once a year on a rolling schedule.

Besides regulations formally promulgated under the APA, federal agencies also frequently promulgate an enormous amount of forms, manuals, policy statements, letters, and rulings. These documents may be considered by a court as persuasive authority as to how a particular statute or regulation may be interpreted, but are not entitled to Chevron deference.

Formulation of federal precedent[link]

Unlike the states, there is no plenary reception statute at the federal level that continued the common law and thereby granted federal courts the power to formulate legal precedent like their English predecessors. Federal courts are solely creatures of the federal Constitution and the federal Judiciary Acts.^[40] However, it is universally accepted that the Founding Fathers of the United States, by vesting "judicial power" into the Supreme Court and the inferior federal courts in Article Three of the United States Constitution, thereby vested in them the implied judicial power of common law courts to formulate persuasive precedent; this power was widely accepted, understood, and recognized by the Founding Fathers at the time the Constitution was ratified.^[41] Several legal scholars have argued that the federal judicial power to decide "cases or controversies" necessarily includes the power to decide the precedential effect of those cases and controversies.^[42]

The difficult question is whether federal judicial power extends to formulating binding precedent through strict adherence to the rule of stare decisis. This is where the act of deciding a case becomes a limited form of lawmaking in itself, in that an appellate court's rulings will thereby bind itself and lower courts in future cases (and therefore also impliedly binds all persons within the court's jurisdiction). Prior to a major change to federal court rules in 2007, about one-fifth of federal appellate cases were published and thereby became binding precedents, while the rest were unpublished and bound only the parties to each case.^[41]

As Judge Alex Kozinski has explained, binding precedent as we know it today simply did not exist at the time the Constitution was framed.^[41] Judicial decisions were not consistently, accurately, and faithfully reported on both sides of the Atlantic (reporters often simply rewrote or failed to publish decisions which they disliked), and the United Kingdom lacked a coherent court hierarchy prior to the end of the 19th century.^[41] Furthermore, English judges in the eighteenth century subscribed to now-obsolete natural law theories of law, by which law was believed to have an existence independent of what individual judges said. They saw themselves as merely declaring the law which had always theoretically existed, not making it.^[41] Therefore, a judge could reject another judge's opinion as simply an incorrect statement of the law, like how scientists regularly reject each other's conclusions as incorrect statements of the laws of science.^[41]

The contemporary rule of binding precedent became possible in the U.S. in the nineteenth century only after the creation of a clear court hierarchy (under the Judiciary Acts), and the beginning of regular verbatim publication of U.S. appellate decisions by West Publishing.^[41] It gradually developed case-by-case as an extension of the judiciary's public policy of effective judicial administration (that is, in order to efficiently exercise the judicial power).^[41] It is generally justified today as a matter of public policy, first, as a matter of fundamental fairness, and second, that in the absence of case law, it would be completely unworkable for every minor issue in every legal case to be briefed, argued, and decided from first principles (such as relevant statutes, constitutional provisions, and underlying public policies), which in turn would create hopeless inefficiency, instability, and unpredictability, and thereby undermine the rule of law.^[43][44]

Here is a typical exposition of that public policy in a 2008 majority opinion signed by Associate Justice Stephen Breyer:

However, since precedents became binding, it is now sometimes possible, over time, for a line of them to drift away from the express language of any underlying statutory or constitutional texts, until such texts are severely overloaded with implied meanings not even hinted at on their face. This tendency towards so-called judicial lawmaking has been particularly obvious in federal substantive due process decisions. Due to obvious tension with the reservation of legislative power to Congress in Article One of the United States Constitution, it is often subject to harsh criticism as "antidemocratic" from originalists such as Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, as in this 2000 dissenting opinion:

State law[link]

Volumes of the Thomson West annotated version of the California Penal Code, the codification of criminal law in the state of California

The Restatement (Second) of Torts, a highly influential restatement of United States tort law

The fifty American states are separate sovereigns with their own state constitutions, state governments, and state courts (including state supreme courts).^[47] They retain plenary power to make laws covering anything not preempted by the federal Constitution, federal statutes, or international treaties ratified by the federal Senate. Normally, state supreme courts are the final interpreters of state constitutions and state law, unless their interpretation itself presents a federal issue, in which case a decision may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by way of a petition for writ of certiorari.^[48]

Most cases are litigated in state courts and involve claims and defenses under state laws. Each year, only about 280,000 civil and criminal cases are heard in federal courts, as opposed to 27.5 million civil and criminal cases in state courts (these numbers exclude 858,000 federal bankruptcy cases, and in state courts, 4.5 million domestic, 1.7 million juvenile, and 55 million traffic cases).^[49]

The law of most of the states is based on the common law of England; the notable exception is Louisiana, whose civil law is largely based upon French and Spanish law. The passage of time has led to state courts and legislatures expanding, overruling, or modifying the common law; as a result, the laws of any given state invariably differ from the laws of its sister states.

All states have a legislative branch which enacts state statutes, an executive branch that promulgates state regulations pursuant to statutory authorization, and a judicial branch that applies, interprets, and occasionally overturns both state statutes and regulations, as well as local ordinances.

All states have codified some or all of their statutory law into legal codes. Codification was an idea borrowed from the civil law through the efforts of American lawyer David Dudley Field.^[50] New York's codes are known as "Laws." California and Texas simply call them "Codes." Other states use terms such as "Revised Statutes" or "Compiled Statutes" for their compilations. California, New York, and Texas have separate subject-specific codes, while all other states and the federal government use a single code divided into numbered titles.

In some states, codification is often treated as a mere restatement of the common law, to the extent that the subject matter of the particular statute at issue was covered by some judge-made principle at common law. Judges are free to liberally interpret the codes unless and until their interpretations are specifically overridden by the legislature.^[51] In other states, there is a tradition of strict adherence to the plain text of the codes.

The advantage of codification is that once the state legislature becomes accustomed to writing new laws as amendments to an existing code, the code will usually reflect democratic sentiment as to what the current law is (though the entire state of the law must always be ascertained by reviewing case law to determine how judges have interpreted a particular codified statute).

In contrast, in jurisdictions with uncodified statutes, like the United Kingdom, determining what the law is can be a more difficult process. One has to trace back to the earliest relevant Act of Parliament, and then identify all later Acts which amended the earlier Act, or which directly overrode it. For example, when the UK decided to create a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, lawmakers had to identify every single Act referring to the House of Lords that was still good law, and then amend all of those laws to refer to the Supreme Court.^[52]

Attempts at "uniform" laws[link]

Efforts by various organizations to create "uniform" state laws have been only partially successful. The two leading organizations are the American Law Institute (ALI) and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL). The most successful and influential uniform laws are the Uniform Commercial Code (a joint ALI-NCCUSL project) and the Model Penal Code (from ALI).

Apart from model codes, the American Law Institute has also created Restatements of the Law which are widely used by lawyers and judges to simplify the task of summarizing the current status of the common law. Instead of listing long, tedious citations of old cases that may not fit very well together (in order to invoke the long-established principles supposedly contained in those cases), or citing a treatise which may reflect the view of only one or two authors, they can simply cite a Restatement section (which is supposed to reflect the consensus of the American legal community) to refer to a particular common law principle.

Local law[link]

Law affects every aspect of American life, including parking lots. Note the citations to statutes on the sign.

States have delegated lawmaking powers to thousands of agencies, townships, counties, cities, and special districts. And all the state constitutions, statutes and regulations (as well as all the ordinances and regulations promulgated by local entities) are subject to judicial interpretation like their federal counterparts.^[53]

It is common for residents of major U.S. metropolitan areas to live under six or more layers of special districts as well as a town or city, and a county or township (in addition to the federal and state governments).^[54] Thus, at any given time, the average American citizen is subject to the rules and regulations of several dozen different agencies at the federal, state, and local levels, depending upon one's current location and behavior.

Types of law[link]

Procedural law[link]

Traditionally, lawyers distinguish between procedural law (which controls the procedure followed by courts and parties to legal cases) and substantive law (which is what most people think of as law). In turn, procedural law is divided into criminal procedure and civil procedure.

Criminal procedure[link]

The law of criminal procedure in the United States consists of a massive overlay of federal constitutional case law interwoven with the federal and state statutes that actually provide the foundation for the creation and operation of law enforcement agencies and prison systems as well as the proceedings in criminal trials. Due to the perennial inability of legislatures in the U.S. to enact statutes that would actually force law enforcement officers to respect the constitutional rights of criminal suspects and convicts, the federal judiciary gradually developed the exclusionary rule as a method to enforce such rights. In turn, the exclusionary rule spawned a family of judge-made remedies for the abuse of law enforcement powers, of which the most famous is the Miranda warning. The writ of habeas corpus is often used by suspects and convicts to challenge their detention, while the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and Bivens actions are used by suspects to recover tort damages for police brutality.

Civil procedure[link]

The law of civil procedure governs process in all judicial proceedings involving lawsuits between private parties. Traditional common law pleading was replaced by code pleading in 24 states after New York enacted the Field Code in 1850, and code pleading in turn was subsequently replaced again in most states by modern notice pleading during the 20th century. The old English division between common law and equity courts was abolished in the federal courts by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938; it has also been independently abolished by legislative acts in nearly all states. The Delaware Court of Chancery is the most prominent of the small number of remaining equity courts.

35 states have adopted rules of civil procedure closely modeled after the FRCP (including rule numbers). However, in doing so, they had to make some modifications to account for the fact that state courts have broad general jurisdiction while federal courts have relatively limited jurisdiction.

New York, Illinois, and California are the most significant states that have not adopted the FRCP. Furthermore, both states continue to maintain their civil procedure laws in the form of codified statutes enacted by the state legislature, as opposed to court rules promulgated by the state supreme court, on the ground that the latter are undemocratic. But certain key portions of their civil procedure laws have been modified by their legislatures to bring them closer to federal civil procedure.^[55]

Generally, American civil procedure has several notable features, including extensive pretrial discovery, heavy reliance on live testimony obtained at deposition or elicited in front of a jury, and aggressive pretrial "law and motion" practice designed to result in a pretrial disposition (that is, summary judgment) or a settlement. U.S. courts pioneered the concept of the opt-out class action, by which the burden falls on class members to notify the court that they do not wish to be bound by the judgment, as opposed to opt-in class actions, where class members must join into the class. Another unique feature is the so-called American Rule under which parties generally bear their own attorneys' fees (as opposed to the English Rule of "loser pays"), though American legislators and courts have carved out numerous exceptions.

Substantive law[link]

Substantive law comprises the actual "substance" of the law; that is, the law that defines legally enforceable rights and duties, and what wrongful acts amount to violations of those rights and duties. Because substantive law by definition is enormous, the following summary briefly covers only a few highlights of each of the major components of American substantive law.

Criminal law[link]

Criminal law involves the prosecution by the state of wrongful acts which are considered to be so serious that they are a breach of the sovereign's peace (and cannot be deterred or remedied by mere lawsuits between private parties). Generally, crimes can result in incarceration, but torts (see below) cannot. The majority of the crimes committed in the United States are prosecuted and punished at the state level. Federal criminal law focuses on areas specifically relevant to the federal government like evading payment of federal income tax, mail theft, or physical attacks on federal officials, as well as interstate crimes like drug trafficking and wire fraud.

All states have somewhat similar laws in regard to "higher crimes" (or felonies), such as murder and rape, although penalties for these crimes may vary from state to state. Capital punishment is permitted in some states but not others. Three strikes laws in certain states impose harsh penalties on repeat offenders.

Some states distinguish between two levels: felonies and misdemeanors (minor crimes). Generally, most felony convictions result in lengthy prison sentences as well as subsequent probation, large fines, and orders to pay restitution directly to victims; while misdemeanors may lead to a year or less in jail and a substantial fine. To simplify the prosecution of traffic violations and other relatively minor crimes, some states have added a third level, infractions. These may result in fines and sometimes the loss of one's driver's license, but no jail time.

For public welfare offenses where the state is punishing merely risky (as opposed to injurious) behavior, there is significant diversity across the various states. For example, punishments for drunk driving varied greatly prior to 1990. State laws dealing with drug crimes still vary widely, with some states treating possession of small amounts of drugs as a misdemeanor offense or as a medical issue and others categorizing the same offense as a serious felony.

Contract law[link]

The Uniform Commercial Code

Contract law covers obligations established by agreement (express or implied) between private parties. Generally, contract law in transactions involving the sale of goods has become highly standardized nationwide as a result of the widespread adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code. However, there is still significant diversity in the interpretation of other kinds of contracts, depending upon the extent to which a given state has codified its common law of contracts or adopted portions of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts.

Parties are permitted to agree to arbitrate disputes arising from their contracts. Under the Federal Arbitration Act (which has been interpreted to cover all contracts arising under federal or state law), arbitration clauses are generally enforceable unless the party resisting arbitration can show unconscionability or fraud or something else which undermines the entire contract.

Tort law[link]

Tort law generally covers any civil action between private parties arising from wrongful acts which amount to a breach of general obligations imposed by law and not by contract.

Tort law covers the entire imaginable spectrum of wrongs which humans can inflict upon each other, and of course, partially overlaps with wrongs also punishable by criminal law. Although the American Law Institute has attempted to standardize tort law through the development of several versions of the Restatement of Torts, many states have chosen to adopt only certain sections of the Restatements and to reject others. Thus, because of its immense size and diversity, American tort law cannot be easily summarized.

For example, a few jurisdictions allow actions for negligent infliction of emotional distress even in the absence of physical injury to the plaintiff, but most do not. For any particular tort, states differ on the causes of action, types and scope of remedies, statutes of limitations, and the amount of specificity with which one must plead the cause. With practically any aspect of tort law, there is a "majority rule" adhered to by most states, and one or more "minority rules."

Notably, the most broadly influential innovation of 20th century American tort law was the rule of strict liability for defective products, which originated with judicial glosses on the law of warranty. In 1963, Roger J. Traynor of the Supreme Court of California threw away legal fictions based on warranties and imposed strict liability for defective products as a matter of public policy in the landmark case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products.^[56] The American Law Institute subsequently adopted a slightly different version of the Greenman rule in Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which was published in 1964 and was very influential throughout the United States.^[57] Outside the U.S., the rule was adopted by the European Economic Community in the Product Liability Directive of July 1985,^[58] by Australia in July 1992,^[59] and by Japan in June 1994.^[60]

By the 1990s, the avalanche of American cases resulting from Greenman and Section 402A had become so complicated that another restatement was needed, which occurred with the 1997 publication of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability.^[61]

Exceptions[link]

Much of Louisiana law is derived from French and Spanish civil law, which stems from its history as a colony of both France and Spain.^[62] Puerto Rico, a former Spanish colony, is also a civil law jurisdiction of the United States.^[63] However, the criminal law of both jurisdictions has been necessarily modified by common law influences and the supremacy of the federal Constitution.^[64][65]

Furthermore, Puerto Rico is also unique in that it is the only U.S. jurisdiction in which the everyday working language of court proceedings, statutes, regulations, and case law is Spanish.^[66] All states, the federal government, and most territories use American English as their working language.^[67] Some states, such as California, do provide certain court forms in other languages (Chinese, Korean, Spanish, Vietnamese) for the convenience of immigrants and naturalized citizens.^[68] But American law as developed through statutes, regulations, and case law is always in English, attorneys are expected to take and pass the bar examination in English, judges hear oral argument, supervise trials, and issue orders from the bench in English, and testimony and documents originating in other languages is translated into English before being incorporated into the official record of a case.^[67]

Many states in the southwest that were originally Mexican territory have inherited several unique features from the civil law that governed when they were part of Mexico. These states include Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas. For example, these states all have a community property system for the property of married persons (Idaho, Washington, and Wisconsin have also adopted community property systems, but they did not inherit them from a previous civil law system that governed the state).^[69][70] Another example of civil law influence in these states can be seen in the California Civil Code, where the law of contracts is treated as part of the law of obligations (though the rules actually codified are clearly derived from the common law).^{[citation needed]}

Many of the western states, including California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming use a system of allocating water rights known as the prior appropriation doctrine, which is derived from Spanish civil law.^[71] It should be noted that each state has modified the doctrine to suit its own internal conditions and needs.^[72]

See also[link]

• Admission to the bar in the United States
• Attorneys in the United States
• Black's Law Dictionary
• Courts of the United States
• Legal education in the United States
  • Law school in the United States
• Legal systems of the world
• Privacy laws of the United States

Lists[link]

• Legal research in the United States
• List of sources of law in the United States
• List of Uniform Acts (United States)—intended for state-level legislation
• List of United States federal legislation
• List of United States Supreme Court cases

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Friedman, Lawrence M. American Law (1984)
• Hall, Kermit L. et al. eds. The Oxford Companion to American Law (2002) excerpt and text search

Legal history[link]

• Friedman, Lawrence M. A History of American Law (3rd ed. 2005) 640 pp
• Friedman, Lawrence M. American Law in the Twentieth Century (2002)
• Hall, Kermit L. The Magic Mirror: Law in American History (1989)
• Hall, Kermit L. et al. American Legal History: Cases and Materials (2010); 752 pages
• Horwitz, Morton J. The transformation of American law: 1780 - 1860 (1977)
• Horwitz, Morton J. The transformation of American law, 1870-1960: the crisis of legal orthodoxy (1994)
• Howe, Mark de Wolfe, ed. Readings in American Legal History (2001) 540pp
• Johnson, Herbert A. American legal and constitutional history: cases and materials (2001) 733 pp
• Rabban, David M. (2003) "The Historiography of Late Nineteenth-Century American Legal History," Theoretical Inquiries in Law 4#2 Article 5. abstract
• Schwartz, Bernard. The Law in America. (Evolution of American legal institutions since 1790). (1974).

Colonial[link]

• Gerber, Scott D. "Bringing Ideas Back In--A Brief Historiography of American Colonial Law," American Journal of Legal History, April 2011, 51#2 pp 359-374
• Hoffer, Peter. Law and people in colonial America (1998) 193pp

Lawyers[link]

• Abel, Richard L. American Lawyers (1991)
• Chroust, Anton-Hermann. The Rise of the legal profession in America (2 vol 1965), to 1860
• Drachman, Virginia G. Sisters In Law: Women Lawyers in Modern American History (2001)
• Nizer, Louis. My Life in Court. (1978) Popular description of a lawyer's practice
• Vile, John R. Great American lawyers: an encyclopedia (2001)
• Vile, John R. Great American judges: an encyclopedia (2003)
• Wortman, Marlene Stein. Women in American Law: From colonial times to the New Deal (1985)

Philosophy of law[link]

• Cardozo, Benjamin N., ed. An Introduction to Law. (1957). essays by eight distinguished American judges
• Hart, H.L.A. The Concept of Law. (1961). Classic text on "what is law?"
• Llewellyn, Karl N. "The Bramble Bush," in Karl N. Llewellyn on Legal Realism. (1986). (Classic introductory text on the nature of law).
• Pound, Roscoe. Social Control Through Law. (Nature of law and its role in society). (1942)

External links[link]

• Texts of US federal laws and US state laws
• U.S. Code collection at Cornell University's Legal Information Institute
• U.S. Code - Cross Referencing

v t e Law of the United States Constitutional law Federalism Separation of powers Civil rights Courts of the United States Federal courts Supreme (SCOTUS) Appeals District (list) Bankruptcy Claims International Trade Tax State courts State supreme Education Law school Law School Admission Test Admission to the bar

Barack Obama
44th President of the United States
Incumbent
Assumed office January 20, 2009
Vice President	Joe Biden
Preceded by	George W. Bush
Personal details
Born	Barack Hussein Obama II[1] (1961-08-04) August 4, 1961 (age 50) Honolulu, Hawaii, United States[1]
Nationality	American
Political party	Democratic
Spouse(s)	Michelle Robinson (m. 1992)
Children	Malia (b.1998) Sasha (b.2001)
Residence	The White House
Alma mater	Occidental College Columbia University (B.A.) Harvard Law School (J.D.)
Profession	Community organizer Attorney Author Constitutional law professor United States Senator President of the United States
Religion	Christian,[2] former member of United Church of Christ[3][4]
Signature
Website	WhiteHouse.gov

	This article is part of a series on Barack Obama
Background Illinois Senate US Senate Political positions Public image Family 2008 primaries Obama–Biden campaign Transition Inauguration Electoral history Presidency Timeline '09 '10 '11 '12 First 100 days Nobel Peace Prize Re-election campaign

Barack Obama being sworn in as President of the United States.

The Presidency of Barack Obama began at noon EST on January 20, 2009, when he became the 44th President of the United States. Obama was a United States Senator from Illinois at the time of his victory over Arizona Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. Barack Obama is the first African-American president of the United States, as well as the first born in Hawaii.

His policy decisions have addressed a global financial crisis and have included changes in tax policies, legislation to reform the United States health care industry, foreign policy initiatives and the phasing out of detention of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba. He attended the G-20 London summit and later visited U.S. troops in Iraq. On the tour of various European countries following the G-20 summit, he announced in Prague that he intended to negotiate substantial reduction in the world's nuclear arsenals, en route to their eventual extinction. In October 2009, Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

Transition period[link]

The presidential transition period began following Obama's election to the presidency on November 4, 2008. The Obama-Biden Transition Project was co-chaired by John Podesta, Valerie Jarrett, and Pete Rouse. During the transition period, Obama announced his nominations for his Cabinet and administration. Shortly after the election on November 4, Obama chose Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois as White House Chief of Staff.^[5]

Cabinet nominations included former Democratic primary opponents Hillary Rodham Clinton for Secretary of State and Bill Richardson for Secretary of Commerce (although the latter withdrew on January 4, 2009). Obama appointed Eric Holder as his Attorney General, the first African-American appointed to that position. He also nominated Timothy F. Geithner to serve as Secretary of the Treasury.^[6] On December 1, Obama announced that he had asked Robert Gates to remain as Secretary of Defense, making Gates the first Defense head to carry over from a president of a different party.^[7] He nominated former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Susan Rice to the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, which he restored to a Cabinet-level position.^[8]

During his transition, he maintained a website Change.gov, on which he wrote blogs to readers and uploaded video addresses by many of the members of his new cabinet.^[9] He announced strict rules for federal lobbyists, restricting them from financially contributing to his administration and forcing them to stop lobbying while working for him.^[10] The website also allowed individuals to share stories and visions with each other and the transition team in what was called the Citizen's Briefing Book, which was given to Obama shortly after his inauguration.^[11] Most of the information from Change.gov was transferred to the official White House website whitehouse.gov just after Obama's inauguration.^[12]

Inauguration[link]

Barack Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009. He officially assumed the presidency at 12:00 noon, EST,^[13] and completed the oath of office at 12:05 PM, EST. He delivered his inaugural address immediately following his oath. After his speech, he went to the President's Room in the House Wing of the Capitol and signed three documents: a commemorative proclamation, a list of Cabinet appointments, and a list of sub-Cabinet appointments, before attending a luncheon with congressional and administration leaders and invited guests.^[14] To commemorate the 200th anniversary of the birth of former President Abraham Lincoln, the same Bible that was used for Lincoln's inauguration was used in Obama's inauguration.^[15]

In administering the oath, Chief Justice John G. Roberts misplaced the word "faithfully" and erroneously replaced the phrase "President of the United States" with "President to the United States" before restating the phrase correctly; since Obama initially repeated the incorrect form, some scholars argued the President should take the oath again.^[16] On January 21, Roberts readministered the oath to Obama in a private ceremony in the White House Map Room, making him the seventh U.S. president to retake the oath; White House Counsel Greg Craig said Obama took the oath from Roberts a second time out of an "abundance of caution".^[17]

First 100 days[link]

Expectations[link]

Obama's 100th day in office was April 29, 2009. In his first post-election interview with 60 Minutes, Obama said that he has been studying Franklin Roosevelt's first 100 days,^[18] while adding, "The first hundred days is going to be important, but it's probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference."^[19]

Obama's first 100 days were highly anticipated ever since he became the presumptive nominee.^[20] Several news outlets created web pages dedicated to covering the subject.^[21] Commentators weighed in on challenges and priorities within domestic, foreign, economic, and environmental policy.^{[22][23][24][25]} CNN lists a number of economic issues that "Obama and his team will have to tackle in their first 100 days", foremost among which is passing and implementing a recovery package to deal with the financial crisis.^[24] Clive Stafford Smith, a British human rights lawyer, expressed hopes that the new president will close Guantanamo Bay detention camp in his first 100 days in office.^[23] After aides of the president announced his intention to give a major foreign policy speech in the capital of an Islamic country, there were speculations in Jakarta that he might return to his former home city within the first 100 days.^[26]

The New York Times devoted a five-part series, which was spread out over two weeks, to anticipatory analysis of Obama's first hundred days. Each day, the analysis of a political expert was followed by freely edited blog postings from readers. The writers compared Obama's prospects with the situations of Franklin D. Roosevelt (January 16, Jean Edward Smith),^[27] John F. Kennedy (January 19, Richard Reeves),^[28] Lyndon B. Johnson (January 23, Robert Dallek),^[29] Ronald Reagan (January 27, Lou Cannon),^[30] and Richard Nixon.

Legislation and executive orders[link]

Within minutes of taking the Oath of Office on January 20, Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, issued an order suspending last-minute federal regulations pushed through by outgoing President George W. Bush, planning to review everything still pending.^[31] Due to the economic crisis, the President enacted a pay freeze for Senior White House Staff making more than $100,000 per year,^[32] as well as announcing stricter guidelines regarding lobbyists in an effort to raise the ethical standards of the White House.^[33] He asked for a waiver to his own new rules, however, for the appointments of William Lynn to the position of Deputy Defense Secretary, Jocelyn Frye to the position of director of policy and projects in the Office of the First Lady, and Cecilia Muñoz to the position of director of intergovernmental affairs in the executive office of the president, leading to some criticism of hypocrisy and violation of his pledge for governmental openness.^[34][35]

In his first week in office, Obama signed Executive Order 13492 suspending all the ongoing proceedings of Guantanamo military commission and ordering the detention facility to be shut down within the year.^[36][37][38] He also signed Executive Order 13491 - Ensuring Lawful Interrogations requiring the Army Field Manual to be used as a guide for terror interrogations, banning torture and other coercive techniques, such as waterboarding.^[39] Obama also issued an executive order entitled "Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel", setting stricter limitations on incoming executive branch employees and placing tighter restrictions on lobbying in the White House.^[40] Obama signed two Presidential Memoranda concerning energy independence, ordering the Department of Transportation to establish higher fuel efficiency standards before 2011 models are released and allowing states to raise their emissions standards above the national standard.^[41] He also ended the Mexico City Policy, which banned federal grants to international groups that provide abortion services or counseling.^[42][43]

In his first week he also established a policy of producing a weekly Saturday morning video address available on whitehouse.gov and YouTube,^[44][45][46] much like those released during his transition period.^[47][48] The first address had been viewed by 600,000 YouTube viewers by the next afternoon.^[49]

The first piece of legislation Obama signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 on January 29, which revised the statute of limitations for filing pay discrimination lawsuits. Lilly Ledbetter joined Obama and his wife, Michelle, as he signed the bill, fulfilling his campaign pledge to nullify Ledbetter v. Goodyear.^[50] On February 3, he signed the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIP), expanding health care from 7 million children under the plan to 11 million.^[51]

President Obama signs the ARRA into law on February 17, 2009 in Denver, Colorado. Vice President Joe Biden stands behind him. Obama addresses a joint session of Congress, with Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.	Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was a focal point of Barack Obama's February 24, 2009 Address Before a Joint Session of Congress. Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) (audio) Audio-only version
Problems listening to these files? See media help.

After much debate, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was passed by both the House and Senate on February 13, 2009. Originally intended to be a bipartisan bill, the passage of the bill was largely along party lines. No Republicans voted for it in the House, and three moderate Republicans voted for it in the Senate (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania).^[52] The bill combined tax breaks with spending on infrastructure projects, extension of welfare benefits, and education.^[53][54] The final cost of the bill was $787 billion, and almost $1.2 trillion with debt service included.^[55] Obama signed the Act into law on February 17, 2009, in Denver, Colorado.^[56]

On March 9, 2009, Obama lifted restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research,^[57] and in doing so, called into question some of George W. Bush's signing statements. Obama stated that he too would employ signing statements if he deems upon review that a portion of a bill is unconstitutional,^[58][59] and he has issued several signing statements.^[60]

Early in his presidency, Obama signed a law raising the tobacco tax 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes.^[61] The tax is to be "used to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children", and "help some [smokers] to quit and persuade young people not to start".^[61]

In October 2011, Obama instituted the We Can't Wait program, which involved using executive orders, administrative rulemaking, and recess appointments to institute policies without the support of Congress.^[62] The initiative was developed in response to Congress's unwillingness to pass economic legislation proposed by Obama, and conflicts in Congress during the 2011 debt ceiling crisis.^[63]

Approval ratings and opinion[link]

2009[link]

After his transition period, Obama entered office with an approval rating of 82%.^[64] At the end of his first week, 68% of respondents in a Gallup poll approved of how Obama was handling his job, the second highest approval rating for a President shortly after being elected since World War II.^[65] Throughout early February polls showed scattered approval ratings: 62% (CBS News),^[66] 64% (USA Today/Gallup), 66% (Gallup), and 76% in an outlier poll (CNN/Opinion Research).^[67][68] Gallup reported the congressional address in late February boosted his approval from a term-low of 59% to 67%.^[69]

Throughout autumn 2009, Rasmussen estimated Obama's approval as fluctuating between 45% and 52% and his disapproval between 48% and 54%;^[70] as of November 11, Pew Research estimated Obama's approval between 51% and 55% and his disapproval between 33% and 37% since July.^[71]

Handling of the economy[link]

Rasmussen reported in mid-February 2009, that 55% of voters gave Obama good or excellent marks on his handling of the economy.^[72] In early March, a The Wall Street Journal survey of 49 economists gave Obama an average grade of 59 out of 100, with 42% of the respondents surveyed giving the administration's economic policies a grade below 60 percent. In comparison, only 30% of those same economists considered the response of governments around the world to the global recession to have been adequate.^[73] In April, a Gallup poll showed trust in Obama's economic policy with 71% saying they had "a fair amount" or "a great deal" of confidence in Obama's handling of the economy, higher than for Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner, or leaders of Congress.^[74] Another Gallup poll in June showed 55% of Americans approved Obama's overall handling of the economy, but 48% and 51% disapproved of his handling of the federal budget deficit and controlling federal spending, respectively.^[75] A CBS News poll taken August 27–31 showed 53% of those polled approved of his handling of the economy.^[76] A Rasmussen poll taken on November 12 found 45% of Americans rating Obama's handling of the economy as poor and 39% rating him as doing a good or excellent job. They found 72% of Democrats rated his handling of the economy as good or excellent, while only 10% of Republicans and 27% of voters not affiliated with either party agreed.^[77]

2010[link]

On March 25, 2010, following his signing of landmark health care reform legislation into law, Obama's polling was revealed by Bloomberg to be 50%, with higher marks for relations with other countries (58%) and his running of the war in Afghanistan (54%). "Obama's approval rating is roughly equal to what Bill Clinton had at this point in his presidency, according to data maintained by Gallup (and) higher than the 45 percent Ronald Reagan recorded in April 1982" and more favorable than Democrats or Republicans office in 2010. They found Obama's approval rating was at 85% among Democrats, compared with 46% among independents and 11% among Republicans.^[78]

Fox News released the results of two polls on April 8–9, 2010. The first showed a drop in Obama's approval rating to 43%, with 48% disapproving. In that poll, Democrats approved of Obama's performance 80–12%, while independents disapproved 49–38%.^[79] The other poll, which concentrated on the economy, showed disapproval of Obama's handling of the economy by a 53–42% margin, with 62% saying they were dissatisfied with the handling of the federal deficit.^[80] According to a Gallup Poll released April 10, 2010, President Obama had a 45% approval rating, with 48% disapproving.^[81] In a poll from Rasmussen Reports, released April 10, 2010, 47% approved of the President's performance, while 53% disapproved.^[82][83]

2011[link]

Obama's approval rating jumped to a high following the death of Osama Bin Laden on May 2, 2011. A GfK poll conducted May 5, 2011 found his approval rating to be 60%. During the debt ceiling debate in August 2011, Obama's approval rating dropped to the low-40s.^[84]

This section requires expansion.

Major legislation[link]

2009[link]

• January 29: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
• February 4: Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act
• February 11: DTV Delay Act
• February 17: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
• March 30: Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009
• April 21: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
• May 20: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act
• May 20: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009
• May 22: Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009
• June 22: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
• August 6: Cash For Clunkers Extension Act
• October 22: Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act
• October 28: Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
• October 30: Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act
• November 6: Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009

2010[link]

• January 27: Emergency Aid to American Survivors of Haiti Earthquake Act
• March 4: Travel Promotion Act
• March 18: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (HIRE Act)
• March 23: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
• March 30: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
• May 5: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010
• May 17: Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act
• July 1: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act
• July 21: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
• July 22: Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010
• July 22: Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010
• August 10: SPEECH Act
• September 27: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010
• December 9: Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010
• December 13: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
• December 17: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010
• December 22: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010

2011[link]

• January 2: James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (H.R. 847)
• January 4: Food Safety and Modernization Act, Pub.L. 111-353, H.R. 2751
• August 2: Budget Control Act of 2011
• October 21: United States-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implemention Act
• October 21: United States-Panama Free Trade Agreement Implemention Act
• October 21: United States-South Korea Free Trade Agreement Implemention Act

Personnel[link]

Cabinet appointees[link]

The Obama Cabinet
Office	Name	Term
President	Barack Obama	2009–present
Vice President	Joe Biden	2009–present
Secretary of State	Hillary Clinton	2009–present
Secretary of Treasury	Timothy Geithner	2009–present
Secretary of Defense	Robert Gates*	2006–2011
	Leon Panetta	2011–present
Attorney General	Eric Holder	2009–present
Secretary of the Interior	Ken Salazar	2009–present
Secretary of Agriculture	Tom Vilsack	2009–present
Secretary of Commerce	Gary Locke	2009–2011
	John Bryson	2011–present
Secretary of Labor	Hilda Solis	2009–present
Secretary of Health and Human Services	Kathleen Sebelius	2009–present
Secretary of Education	Arne Duncan	2009–present
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development	Shaun Donovan	2009–present
Secretary of Transportation	Ray LaHood	2009–present
Secretary of Energy	Steven Chu	2009–present
Secretary of Veterans Affairs	Eric Shinseki	2009–present
Secretary of Homeland Security	Janet Napolitano	2009–present
Chief of Staff	Rahm Emanuel	2009–2010
	William Daley	2011–2012
	Jacob Lew	2012–present
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency	Lisa Jackson	2009–present
Director of the Office of Management and Budget	Peter Orszag	2009–2010
	Jacob Lew	2010–2012
	Jeffrey Zients**	2012–present
Ambassador to the United Nations	Susan Rice	2009–present
United States Trade Representative	Ron Kirk	2009–present
*Retained from previous administration **Acting

Twenty-two members of the Obama administration are either in the United States Cabinet (15) or are in positions considered to be Cabinet-level (7). The members of the Cabinet are the heads of the fifteen major departments (State, Defense, Justice, etc.), and the seven cabinet-level positions are the Vice President, White House Chief of Staff, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador to the United Nations, and the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.^[85][86] Since Robert Gates was a member of the previous administration, his letter of resignation (a formality at the end of a President's term) was simply not accepted, and he did not need confirmation.^[87] On January 19, 2009, Senate Democratic leaders requested fifteen of the twenty positions to be ratified by unanimous consent,^[88] and seven gained unanimous confirmation by voice vote the next day: Ken Salazar, Steven Chu, Arne Duncan, Peter Orszag, Eric Shinseki, Tom Vilsack, and Janet Napolitano.^[87][89] On January 21, Obama presided over the swearing in of the seven unanimous nominees.^[90] Later that day, the Senate confirmed Hillary Clinton by a 94–2 vote. On January 22, several more confirmations were approved unanimously: Susan E. Rice, Ray LaHood, Lisa P. Jackson, and Shaun Donovan.^[91] On January 26, the Senate confirmed Geithner by a 60–34 margin.^[92][93]

At the conclusion of Obama's first week as President, Hilda Solis, Tom Daschle, Ron Kirk, and Eric Holder had yet to be confirmed, and there had been no second appointment for Secretary of Commerce.^[93] Holder was confirmed by a vote of 75–21 on February 2,^[94] and on February 3, Obama announced Senator Judd Gregg as his second nomination for Secretary of Commerce.^[95] Daschle withdrew later that day amid controversy over his failure to pay income taxes and potential conflicts of interest related to the speaking fees he accepted from health care interests.^[96] Solis was later confirmed by a vote of 80-17 on February 24,^[97] and Ron Kirk was confirmed on March 18 by a 92-5 vote in the Senate.^[98]

Gregg, who was the leading Republican negotiator and author of the TARP program in the Senate, after publication that he had a multi-million dollar investment in the Bank of America, on February 12, withdrew his nomination as Secretary of Commerce, citing "irresolvable conflicts" with President Obama and his staff over how to conduct the 2010 census and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.^[99][100] Former Washington governor Gary Locke was nominated on February 26^[101] as Obama's third choice for Commerce Secretary and confirmed on March 24 by voice vote.^[102]

On March 2, Obama introduced Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius as his second choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services. He also introduced Nancy-Ann DeParle as head of the new White House Office of Health Reform, which he suggested would work closely with the Department of Health and Human Services.^[103][104] At the end of March, Sebelius was the only remaining Cabinet member yet to be confirmed.^[102]

Six high-ranking cabinet nominees in the Obama administration had their confirmations delayed or rejected among reports that they did not pay all of their taxes, including Tom Daschle, Obama's original nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.^[105] Though Geithner was confirmed, and Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, thought Daschle would have been confirmed, Daschle withdrew his nomination on February 3.^[96] Obama had nominated Nancy Killefer for the position of Chief Performance Officer, but Killefer also withdrew on February 3, citing unspecified problems with District of Columbia unemployment tax.^[106] A senior administration official said that Killefer's tax issues dealt with household help.^[106] Hilda Solis, Obama's nominee for Secretary of Labor, faced delayed confirmation hearings due to tax lien concerns pertaining to her husband's auto repair business,^[107] but she was later confirmed on February 24.^[97] While pundits puzzled over U.S. Trade Representative-designate Ron Kirk's failure to be confirmed by March 2009, it was reported on March 2 that Kirk owed over $10,000 in back taxes. Kirk agreed to pay them in exchange for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus's aid in speeding up the confirmation process;^[108] he was later confirmed on March 18.^[98] On March 31, Kathleen Sebelius, Obama's nominee for Health and Human Services secretary, revealed in a letter to the Senate Finance Committee that her Certified Public Accountant found errors in her tax returns for years 2005-2007. She, along with her husband, paid more than $7,000 in back taxes, along with $878 in interest.^[109]

Notable non-Cabinet positions[link]

Appointees serve at the pleasure of the President and were nominated by Barack Obama except as noted.

• Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
  • Sheila Bair¹ (2009–2011)
• Special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan
  • Richard Holbrooke (2009–2010)
  • Marc Grossman (2011–present)
• Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
  • Retired General James L. Jones (2009–2011)
  • Thomas E. Donilon (2011–present)
• Special envoy to the Middle East
  • George J. Mitchell (2009–2011)
  • David Hale (2011–present)
• Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
  • Robert Mueller² (2009–present)
• Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
  • Leon Panetta (2009–2011)
  • Michael Morell (Acting-2011)
  • David Petraeus (2011–present)
• Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • Christina Romer (2009–2010)
  • Austan Goolsbee (2010–2011)
  • Alan Krueger (2011–present)
• Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission
  • Mary Schapiro (2009–present)
• Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of National Economic Council
  • Lawrence Summers (2009–2010)
  • Gene Sperling (2011–present)
• Chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board
  • Paul Volcker (2009–2011)
  • Replaced by Council on Jobs and Competitiveness in 2011
• Chairperson of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness
  • Jeffrey R. Immelt (2011–present)

¹Appointed by George W. Bush in 2006 to a five-year term
²Appointed by George W. Bush in 2001 to a ten-year term

Judicial nominees[link]

United States Supreme Court[link]

Obama appointed the following Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States:

• Sonia Sotomayor – 2009
• Elena Kagan – 2010

Other courts[link]

Outside of the Supreme Court, by October 2009, Obama had nominated fewer than two dozen judges to fill judicial vacancies, of which there were close to 100. This has prompted some Democrats to criticize the pace of Obama's judicial appointments as too slow.^[110] In December 2009, Senator Patrick Leahy criticized Republicans for stalling those judicial nominations that had been made, noting that the Senate confirmed more district and circuit court nominees during the first year of the George W. Bush administration than it had approved by that point during the Barack Obama presidency.^[111]

As of July 2010, Obama's nominees to the district and circuit courts had been confirmed at a rate of only 43.5 percent, compared to 87.2 percent during Bill Clinton's administration and 91.3 percent for George W. Bush. The Center for American Progress, which compiled the data, commented:

Judicial confirmations slowed to a trickle on the day President Barack Obama took office. Filibusters, anonymous holds, and other obstructionary tactics have become the rule. Uncontroversial nominees wait months for a floor vote, and even district court nominees—low-ranking judges whose confirmations have never been controversial in the past—are routinely filibustered into oblivion. Nominations grind to a halt in many cases even after the Senate Judiciary Committee has unanimously endorsed a nominee. ^[112]

Policies[link]

Economy[link]

Upon entering office, Obama planned to center his attention on handling the global financial crisis.^[113] Even before his inauguration he lobbied Congress to pass an economic stimulus bill,^[114] which became the top priority during his first month in office.^[115] As President, Obama made a high profile trip to Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C. to dialog with Congressional Republicans and advocate for the bill.^[116] On February 17, 2009, Obama signed into law a $787 billion plan that included spending for health care, infrastructure, education, various tax breaks and incentives, and direct assistance to individuals.^[117] The tax provisions of the law reduced taxes for 98 percent of taxpayers, bringing tax rates to their lowest levels in 60 years.^[118]

As part of the 2010 budget proposal, the Obama administration has proposed additional measures to attempt to stabilize the economy, including a $2–3 trillion measure aimed at stabilizing the financial system and freeing up credit. The program includes up to $1 trillion to buy toxic bank assets, an additional $1 trillion to expand a federal consumer loan program, and the $350 billion left in the Troubled Assets Relief Program. The plan also includes $50 billion intended to slow the wave of mortgage foreclosures.^[117] The 2011 budget includes a three-year freeze on discretionary spending, proposes several program cancellations, and raises taxes on high income earners to bring down deficits during the economic recovery.^[119]

Obama speaking with former President Bill Clinton and Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett about job creation in July 2010.

In a July 2009 interview with ABC News, Biden was asked about the sustained increase of the U.S. unemployment rate from May 2007 to October 2009^[120] despite the administration's multi-year economic stimulus package passed five months earlier. He responded "The truth is, we and everyone else, misread the economy. The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures and most of the blue chip indexes out there ... the truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited."^[121][122] The White House indicates that 2 million jobs were created or saved due to the stimulus package in 2009^[123] and self reporting by recipients of the grants, loans, and contracts portion of the package report that the package saved or created 608,317 jobs in the final three months of 2009.^[124]