Deconstructing Judge Bybee’s Disingenuous Dissent

On January 27, 2017, Executive Order 13769 was issued; among other things the order instructed cabinet secretaries to stop immigration from seven previously identified countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen), the officials being authorized to issue exemptions on a case-by-case basis. The order was immediately challenged in a number of suits in the federal district courts, with at least one court (in Boston) upholding the order. However, the court in the Western district of Washington, finding that the order was likely to be ruled unconstitutional in a trial on the merits, issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking the government from enforcing the order. The government immediately appealed the TRO to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel of the court heard the appeal, and unanimously dismissed the government’s request for a stay of the TRO in a per curiam decision. Rather than appeal the decision of the 3-judge panel to the full court of appeals, or to the Supreme Court, the government chose to withdraw the initial order, mooting the decision, and began to redraft the order to address the defects in the original order identified by the district court trial judge and the 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit.

The opinion of the 3-judge panel upholding the TRO, focused on three provisions of the order: first the 120-day ban on entry into the US by any nationals from the seven listed countries, including nationals who are legal permanent residents, holders of green cards, or other valid non-immigrant visas permitting them to work or reside in the US, second the suspension for 120 days of the refugee resettlement program for nationals of the seven listed countries, and, upon completion of the 120-day period, the prioritization of granting refugee status to religious minorities (i.e., non-Muslims) from those countries, and third, the indefinite suspension of all Syrians from the refugee resettlement program.

Although the cause of action underlying the Washington case was removed by the withdrawal of executive order 13769, the decision of the 3-judge panel remains valid and may be cited as authority by other courts. However, one (unnamed) judge on the Ninth Circuit moved for the opinion to be vacated, a technical term meaning that the decision and the opinion are reduced to the approximate status of, say, a law review article, but become devoid of any precedential authority. A motion by a judge on the court of appeals to vacate a decision is typically not made unless a judge wants to signal his or her strong disagreement with the decision, and the opinion written by Judge Jay Bybee of the Ninth Circuit and concurred in by four other judges of the Ninth Circuit, including the former Chief Judge, Alex Kozinski.

The main points of the opinion of the 3-judge panel were: 1) the states of Washington and Minnesota had standing to act as plaintiffs on behalf of resident aliens and on behalf of citizens whose rights or interests were incidentally harmed by the executive order; 2) the executive order was subject to judicial review notwithstanding broad Constitutional powers assigned to the executive branch in matters of foreign policy and explicit grants of authority by Congress over immigration policy; 3) the TRO issued by the district court was a procedural order based on a finding by the court that the plaintiffs had established a substantial likelihood of success at trial; 4) in seeking to stay the TRO, the government bore the burden of rebutting the decision of the trial court that plaintiffs would prevail on the merits, which could be done either by proving that the wrong standard of judicial review was applied, or by showing that there was a compelling national security justification for the order; 5) the district court was correct in ruling that the plaintiffs had a strong likelihood of success in establishing that the Constitutionally granted rights of due process to which nationals from the seven listed countries who were either legal resident aliens, green-card holders, or holders of valid travel visas are entitled had been violated by the executive order; 6) the likelihood that claims by plaintiffs that they were victims of religious discrimination would be upheld is not clear, but a likelihood of success in establishing their due-process claims having been established, plaintiffs could continue to raise their religious discrimination claims in subsequent proceedings.

In his opinion arguing for the decision and opinion of the 3-judge panel to be vacated, Judge Bybee focused his attention primarily on the standard under which Executive Order 13769 may properly be reviewed. The key point of contention is whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Mandel v. Kleindienst sets the limits to what factors a court may take into consideration in reviewing the Executive Order, the failure of the 3-judge panel to abide by the Mandel standard constituting the fundamental error justifying the panel’s per curiam opinion to be vacated. But before considering the relevance of Mandel v. Kleindienst to the Washington case, I want to take note of some of Judge Bybee’s remarks about the Constitutional status of aliens and the rights to which they are entitled.

Having acknowledged that decisions by the government in the fields of foreign affairs and immigration policy are not entirely beyond the scope of judicial review, Judge Bybee asks how the requirements of judicial review can be reconciled with the deference owed to the political branches in those areas. He responds by invoking an old case:

The Supreme Court has given us a way to analyze these knotty questions, but it depends on our ability to distinguish between two groups of aliens: those who are present within our borders and those who are seeking admission. As the Court explained in Leng May Ma v. Barber,

It is important to note at the outset that our immigration laws have long made a distinction between those aliens who have come to our shores seeking admission, . . . and those who are within the United States after an entry, irrespective of its legality. In the latter instance the Court has recognized additional rights and privileges not extended to those in the former category who are merely “on the threshold of initial entry.” 357 U.S. 185, 187 (1958) (quoting Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212). (pp. 10-11)

The panel did not recognize that critical distinction and it led to manifest error.

This is a quite remarkable assertion by Judge Bybee, because two paragraphs earlier, criticizing the 3-judge panel for having merely paid lip-service to the deference owed to the President in the field of foreign affairs, Judge Bybee commented acidly:

The panel began its analysis from two important premises: first, that it is an “uncontroversial principle” that we “owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches,” 847 F.3d at 1161; second, that courts can review constitutional challenges to executive actions, see id. at 1164. I agree with both of these propositions. Unfortunately, that was both the beginning and the end of the deference the panel gave the President. (p. 9)

A rather peculiar criticism for Judge Bybee to have made inasmuch as his invocation of the critical distinction between aliens coming to our shores seeking admission and those already within the US after entry is both the beginning and the end of his own recognition of that distinction. But aside from its peculiarity, the criticism was completely misplaced, the distinction between two classes of aliens actually being central to the reasoning by which the panel justified its opinion.

The bedrock of Judge Bybee’s dissent rests is the case Kleindienst v. Mandel decided in 1972. Before Mandel, the doctrine of Consular Nonreviewability was absolute. Thus, in Knauff v. Shaughnessy the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of a former American soldier who wanted to bring his German wife to America under the War Brides Act. His wife’s application for a visa having been denied on the basis of confidential undisclosed information transmitted to the counselor official processing Mrs. Knauff’s visa application, Mr. Knauff filed suit seeking judicial review of the consular decision. The Court ruled that, as an alien applying for admission to the United States, Mrs. Knauff had no due-process claim for a review of the consular decision. The best commentary on the Court’s reprehensible decision was delivered by Justice Jackson in his dissenting opinion (which follows Justice Frankurter’s dissent in the link). “Security is like liberty” wrote Justice Jackson, “in that many are the crimes committed in its name.”

In Mandel, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability was extended, and modified ever-so slightly, to take into account not the non-existent right to due process of non-resident aliens, but the implicated rights of American citizens claiming some injury as a result of the consular official’s rejection of the alien’s visa application. Mandel, a Marxist journalist and scholar invited to speak at an academic conference, had unsuccessfully applied for a visa to enter the United States to attend the conference, his application having been denied by a consular official. In an earlier visit to the US to lecture and participate in academic conferences, Mandel had made an unscheduled appearance not authorized by his visa. Mandel and co-plaintiffs brought suit against Richard Kleindienst to require him to grant a waiver to the denial of Mandel’s visa request on the grounds that denial of Mandel’s request had violated the First and Fifth Amendment rights, not of Mandel, but of the US citizens who had invited him to participate in their conference. Mandel is, sadly, a well-established precedent, but its holding is orthogonal to the point of law – the rights to due process of aliens legally present within our borders – for which Judge Bybee invokes its undeserved authority.

Having both acknowledged and lamented Mandel’s status as an authoritative precedent on which much current immigration law depends, I will digress briefly to that a fair reading of the dissents by Justice Douglas and especially Justice Marshall ought to create substantial doubt in the mind of any disinterested reader that the case was correctly decided. Justice Marshall’s powerful and eloquent dissent deserves particular attention.

Today’s majority apparently holds that Mandel may be excluded and Americans’ First Amendment rights restricted because the Attorney General has given a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” for refusing to waive Mandel’s visa ineligibility. I do not understand the source of this unusual standard. Merely “legitimate” governmental interests cannot override constitutional rights. Moreover, the majority demands only “facial” legitimacy and good faith, by which it means that this Court will never “look behind” any reason the Attorney General gives. No citation is given for this kind of unprecedented deference to the Executive, nor can I imagine (nor am I told) the slightest justification for such a rule.

Even the briefest peek behind the Attorney General’s reason for refusing a waiver in this case would reveal that it is a sham. The Attorney General informed appellees’ counsel that the waiver was refused because Mandel’s activities on a previous American visit “went far beyond the stated purposes of his trip . . . and represented a flagrant abuse of the opportunities afforded him to express his views in this country.” App. 68. But, as the Department of State had already conceded to appellees’ counsel, Dr. Mandel “was apparently not informed that [his previous] visa was issued only after obtaining a waiver of ineligibility and therefore [Mandel] may not have been aware of the conditions and limitations attached to the [previous] visa issuance.” App. 22. There is no basis in the present record for concluding that Mandel’s behavior on his previous visit was a “flagrant abuse” — or even willful or knowing departure — from visa restrictions. For good reason, the Government in this litigation has never relied on the Attorney General’s reason to justify Mandel’s exclusion. In these circumstances, the Attorney General’s reason cannot possibly support a decision for the Government in this case. But without even remanding for a factual hearing to see if there is any support for the Attorney General’s determination, the majority declares that his reason is sufficient to override appellees’ First Amendment interests.

Thus, the Mandel court’s own invocation of the “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” by which it justified the government’s refusal to grant Mandel a visa was itself neither facially legitimate nor bona fide, but a flagrant exercise of bad faith by the majority, invoking a made-up and pretextual justification for the refusal to grant Mandel a visa that even the government had not offered as a justification of its position. After disposing of this sham argument, Justice Marshall addressed the heart of the majority opinion, the broad grant of power to the Executive to exclude whole classes of aliens from the US.

The heart of appellants’ position in this case . . . is that the Government’s power is distinctively broad and unreviewable because “the regulation in question is directed at the admission of aliens.” Brief for Appellants 33. Thus, in the appellants’ view, this case is no different from a long line of cases holding that the power to exclude aliens is left exclusively to the “political” branches of Government, Congress, and the Executive.

These cases are not the strongest precedents in the United States Reports, and the majority’s baroque approach reveals its reluctance to rely on them completely. They include such milestones as The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889), and Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893), in which this Court upheld the Government’s power to exclude and expel Chinese aliens from our midst.

But none of these old cases must be “reconsidered” or overruled to strike down Dr. Mandel’s exclusion, for none of them was concerned with the rights of American citizens. All of them involved only rights of the excluded aliens themselves. At least when the rights of Americans are involved, there is no basis for concluding that the power to exclude aliens is absolute. “When Congress’ exercise of one of its enumerated powers clashes with those individual liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, it is our ‘delicate and difficult task’ to determine whether the resulting restriction on freedom can be tolerated.” United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 264 (1967). As Robel and many other cases5  show, all governmental power — even the war power, the power to maintain national security, or the power to conduct foreign affairs — is limited by the Bill of Rights. When individual freedoms of Americans are at stake, we do not blindly defer to broad claims of the Legislative Branch or Executive Branch, but rather we consider those claims in light of the individual freedoms. This should be our approach in the present case, even though the Government urges that the question of admitting aliens may involve foreign relations and national defense policies.

The majority recognizes that the right of American citizens to hear Mandel is “implicated” in our case. There were no rights of Americans involved in any of the old alien exclusion cases, and therefore their broad counsel about deference to the political branches is inapplicable. Surely a Court that can distinguish between pre-indictment and post-indictment lineups, Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972), can distinguish between our case and cases which involve only the rights of aliens.

I do not mean to suggest that simply because some Americans wish to hear an alien speak, they can automatically compel even his temporary admission to our country. Government may prohibit aliens from even temporary admission if exclusion is necessary to protect a compelling governmental interest.6  Actual threats to the national security, public health needs, and genuine requirements of law enforcement are the most apparent interests that would surely be compelling.7  But in Dr. Mandel’s case, the Government has, and claims, no such compelling interest. Mandel’s visit was to be temporary.8  His “ineligibility” for a visa was based solely on § 212(a)(28). The only governmental interest embodied in that section is the Government’s desire to keep certain ideas out of circulation in this country. This is hardly a compelling governmental interest. Section (a)(28) may not be the basis for excluding an alien when Americans wish to hear him. Without any claim that Mandel “live” is an actual threat to this country, there is no difference between excluding Mandel because of his ideas and keeping his books out because of their ideas. Neither is permitted. Lamont v. Postmaster General, supra.

Writing for the majority, Justice Blackmun – yes, that Justice Blackmun – attempted to deflect the clear violation of the First Amendment rights of American citizens resulting from the denial of Mandel’s visa application.

Appellees’ First Amendment argument would prove too much. In almost every instance of an alien excludable under § 212(a)(28), there are probably those who would wish to meet and speak with him. The ideas of most such aliens might not be so influential as those of Mandel, nor his American audience so numerous, nor the planned discussion forums so impressive. But the First Amendment does not protect only the articulate, the well known, and the popular. Were we to endorse the proposition that governmental power to withhold a waiver must yield whenever a bona fide claim is made that American citizens wish to meet and talk with an alien excludable under § 212(a)(28), one of two unsatisfactory results would necessarily ensue. Either every claim would prevail, in which case the plenary discretionary authority Congress granted the Executive becomes a nullity, or courts in each case would be required to weigh the strength of the audience’s interest against that of the Government in refusing a waiver to the particular alien applicant, according to some as yet undetermined standard. The dangers and the undesirability of making that determination on the basis of factors such as the size of the audience or the probity of the speaker’s ideas are obvious. Indeed, it is for precisely this reason that the waiver decision has, properly, been placed in the hands of the Executive.

This response might have been persuasive if there had in fact been a bona fide reason for denying Mandel’s visa application. However, the stated reason was clearly pretextual and a sham; the real reason for denying the application was Mandel’s political opinions, so the First Amendment argument raised by Appellees was entirely correct and unrebutted by Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion. Mandel v. Kleindienst was wrongly and dishonestly decided, and, like similar wrongly decided cases, e.g., Korematsu v. United States, deserves, as a matter of simple justice, no precedential weight.

Despite its having been demolished by Justice Marshall’s dissent, I am willing to stipulate for present purposes that the majority opinion in Mandel would be controlling if it were not distinguishable from the case decided by the 3-judge panel. But let us keep in mind two important takeaway points from Justice Marshall’s discussion: first, the disgraceful, racist lineage of the plenary powers doctrine as it relates to immigration, and second, and more importantly for assessing Judge Bybee’s dissent, the absence in Mandel v. Kleindienst of any distinction between the Constitutional rights or interests of citizens that are incidentally abridged by the refusal to admit non-resident aliens into the Unites States and the Constitutional due process rights of aliens legally residing in the United States, precisely the distinction that, Judge Bybee incorrectly asserts, is addressed by Mandel.

Judge Bybee begins by criticizing the 3-judge panel for distinguishing Mandel, in which the Attorney General’s refusal to grant a waiver allowing Mandel entry to the US after a consular official denied his visa application, from an Executive Order promulgating sweeping immigration policy. Judge Bybee offers the following rebuttal:

First, the panel’s declaration that we cannot look behind the decision of a consular officer, but can examine the decision of the President stands the separation of powers on its head. We give deference to a consular officer making an individual determination, but not the President when making a broad, national security-based decision? With a moment’s thought, that principle cannot withstand the gentlest inquiry, and we have said so. See Bustamante v. Mukasey , 531 F.3d 1059, 1062 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We are unable to distinguish Mandel on the grounds that the exclusionary decision challenged in that case was not a consular visa denial, but rather the Attorney General’s refusal to waive Mandel’s inadmissibility. The holding is plainly stated in terms of the power delegated by Congress to the Executive.’ The Supreme Court said nothing to suggest that the reasoning or outcome would vary according to which executive officer is exercising the Congressionally-delegated power to exclude.”) (pp. 12-13)

Judge Bybee’s sarcasm is as misplaced as it is inappropriate. Mandel is a case about the exercise of a Congressionally authorized power to make a factual determination, normally delegated to a consular official, but in this case the determination at issue was made by the Attorney General reviewing the consular decision. In Bustamente the decision was made at the consular level. Big deal! The Mandel court ruled that such consular decisions to deny visas or higher- level decisions to deny waivers to lower-level decisions were not reviewable on the merits, even if the denials incidentally infringed upon the Constitutional rights of American citizens, provided that “a facially legitimate and bona fide reason” for the decision was provided. The deference accorded by Mandel to the factual decision of a consular official – or his superior — to deny the visa application of a non-resident alien, albeit one that incidentally affected the rights of an American citizen, is in no way comparable to a Presidential decision denying or abridging the Constitutional due-process rights of legally resident aliens, green-card holders and non-immigrant aliens holding valid visas.

Second, the promulgation of broad policy is precisely what we expect the political branches to do; Presidents rarely, if ever, trouble themselves with decisions to admit or exclude individual visa -seekers. See Knauff, 338 U.S. at 543 (“[B]ecause the power of exclusion of aliens is also inherent in the executive department of the sovereign, Congress may in broad terms authorize the executive to exercise the power . . . for the best interests of the country during a time of national emergency.”). If the panel is correct, it just wiped out any principle of deference to the executive. (p. 13)

Is there no deference to the executive unless we allow the Constitutional rights of American citizens and legally resident aliens to be trampled upon by the executive? Since when does “deference” mean “abject submission?” The implications of Judge Bybee’s argument lead straight to Korematsu v. United States. If Judge Bybee is correct, what Constitutional rights may not be abridged by the executive in the process of excluding aliens? Deference to the executive need not entail acquiescence in the denial of due process rights on an industrial scale.

Judge Bybee then invokes Fiallo v. Bell to support his position that broad policy decisions – in this case by Congress, which accorded preferential treatment to the natural mothers of illegitimate children over the natural fathers – are immune from scrutiny despite having discriminatory effects (pp. 13-14). In Fiallo, the Supreme Court upheld a provision of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act giving preference for immigration into the US to the legitimate parents of American citizens and to the illegitimate mothers (but not illegitimate fathers) of American citizens as well as to the legitimate children of American parents and to the illegitimate children of American mothers (but not American fathers). A group of illegitimate fathers of American children and illegitimate offspring of American fathers challenged this provision for discriminating on the basis of sex and legitimacy. The Fiallo Court relied on the Mandel “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” test to rule against the plaintiffs.

The panel’s holding that “exercises of policy making authority at the highest levels of the political branches are plainly not subject to the Mandel standard,” id., is simply irreconcilable with the Supreme Court’s holding that it could “see no reason to review the broad congressional policy choice at issue [there] under a more exacting standard than was applied in Kleindienst v. Mandel,” Fiallo, 430 U.S. at 795.

Having thoughtlessly embarked on the wrong road, Judge Bybee keeps marching relentlessly forward. Fiallo, like Mandel, is a case brought by American citizens claiming that their Constitutional rights not to be discriminated against had been incidentally abridged by a Congressional policy decision concerning which aliens, not otherwise eligible for entry into the US, shall be granted special waivers. While the case is related to Mandel, it was not entailed by Mandel, because deference to a consular decision about a question of fact need not entail deference to Congress about a matter of policy. Indeed, both the majority and the minority in Fiallo suggested reasons why the Congressional policy might have been judged to serve a legitimate public purpose. But again the key point is simply that the holding of the Fiallo court did not address the issue addressed by Washington, which is whether the President, by Executive Order, may deny the Constitutional rights of resident aliens, green card holders, and aliens holding valid visas.

Judge Bybee’s wrongheaded attack on the decision of the 3-judge panel reaches a crescendo of confusion in his discussion of Kerry v. Din (pp. 14-16), once again citing a case involving the Constitutional claim of an American citizen as a basis for challenging the denial of a visa to a non-resident alien. In Din, a US citizen whose Afghani husband had been denied an entry visa, claimed that her Constitutional right to live with her husband had been violated without due process. After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her claim, the Supreme Court reversed that decision on appeal. Not only does Judge Bybee misunderstand the relevance of Din to the issues addressed by the 3-judge panel, he fails to recognize that the holding of the Din court has essentially no precedential weight, because the majority that upheld the decision not to grant Din’s husband a visa did not agree on the grounds for rejecting Din’s claim, three justices rejecting Din’s claim that she had a Constitutional right to live with her husband, and two justices arguing that even if she had such a Constitutional right, the consular decision to her husband’s visa request satisfied the Mandel “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” test.

Believing that, because Justice Kennedy’s opinion invoking the Mandel test was controlling, that opinion has precedential authority for other cases, Judge Bybee admonishes the 3-judge panel for ignoring Din. Judge Bybee is wrong on both counts; Din is irrelevant to the opinion of the 3-judge panel, and, even if it were relevant, the 3-judge panel would not have had to reckon with it, because the majority could not agree on the basis of the decision. And I can’t help but observe that, on its face, Justice Kennedy’s opinion that the decision of the consular official that Din’s husband was a terrorist threat merely because he had held a civil-service position under the Taliban government did not obviously satisfy even the weak Mandel test, as Justice Breyer cogently observed in his dissenting opinion.

When Judge Bybee finally does get to a discussion of relevant precedents 16 pages into his 25 page opinion, the best he is able to come up with is Rajah v. Mukasey. After the September 11 attacks, non-immigrant resident males over the age of 16 from 24 Muslim-majority countries plus North Korea were required to appear for registration and fingerprinting. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this requirement in view of potential risks of further terrorist attacks. Although these requirements were burdensome and discriminatory, those requirements were hardly comparable to exclusion from the United States, so the willingness of the Rajah court to approve such provisions in the wake of the worst terrorist attack in US history does not come close to proving what Judge Bybee wants it to prove: that the law allows the President to revoke the Constitutional rights of resident aliens and prevent them from re-entering the country without even granting them a hearing. In other words, under Judge Bybee’s understanding, resident aliens denied re-entry into the country by Executive Order 13769 would be denied even the minimal “additional rights and privileges not extended to those on the threshold of entry” that, according to the Court in Leng May Ma v. Barber cited above, have been recognized by the Court.

The logical confusion of Judge Bybee’s conflation of two completely different classes of cases is actually quite impressive.

Judge Bybee (p. 20) also invokes 8 U.S.C. 1182f as a legal basis for the executive order at issue. However, the statutory authority of the US Code does not automatically override the Constitutional right to a hearing of a legal resident alien denied re-entry into the United States. Nor is it obvious that the statute in question referring to “the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States,” includes resident aliens seeking re-entry into the United States. That is a question of statutory interpretation and the courts are entitled to have the final say on matters of statutory interpretation.

Judge Bybee (p. 20-21) considers that the reasons offered by the President in issuing the executive order were facially legitimate and bona fide reasons, but he acknowledges that in Din, Justice Kennedy indicated that evidence of bad faith on the part of a consular officer who denied a visa might be grounds for questioning whether the reasons offered by consular officer were “facially legitimate and bona fide.” After again chiding the 3-judge panel for not discussing Din, Judge Bybee (p. 21-22) then makes the interesting remark that “it would be a huge leap to suggest that Din’s ‘bad faith’ exception also applies to the motives of broad-policy makers as opposed to those of consular officials.” Because the grounds for suspecting that the executive order was issued in bad faith are so varied and abundant, it is astonishing that Judge Bybee would consider it a leap to conclude that a bad-faith exception might apply to a policy maker, especially after Judge Bybee was so insistent earlier in his opinion that the Mandel “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” test originally applied to the consular nonreviewability doctrine applied seamlessly to both consular decisions and to broad policy decisions.

There are other defects of Judge Bybee’s decision that I could have touched on, but this post is already much too long, and I have devoted too much of my time to tracking them down and explaining them. But I hope others will continue.

Advertisements

0 Responses to “Deconstructing Judge Bybee’s Disingenuous Dissent”



  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




About Me

David Glasner
Washington, DC

I am an economist in the Washington DC area. My research and writing has been mostly on monetary economics and policy and the history of economics. In my book Free Banking and Monetary Reform, I argued for a non-Monetarist non-Keynesian approach to monetary policy, based on a theory of a competitive supply of money. Over the years, I have become increasingly impressed by the similarities between my approach and that of R. G. Hawtrey and hope to bring Hawtrey's unduly neglected contributions to the attention of a wider audience.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,377 other followers

Follow Uneasy Money on WordPress.com

%d bloggers like this: