Yesterday, the Department of Justice announced that an Australian man had been sentenced to 24 months in prison for illegally exporting aircraft parts and other items to Iran without a license, in violation of a law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The case relied on a 1979 declaration of national emergency that remains in force.

The IEEPA, which gives the President the power to regulate certain economic transactions, can only be used under conditions of a national emergency. But it is the most frequently used of all of the reported 123 emergency statutes that have been adopted under the National Emergencies Act.

A major new report from the Congressional Research Service documents the history and application of the IEEPA as a tool of presidential emergency power. See The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use, March 20, 2019.

The “emergency” that made it possible to apply the IEEPA against the Austrailian exporter who was sentenced yesterday is the first, the oldest and the longest emergency ever declared under the National Emergencies Act. It was pronounced by President Carter in response to the seizure of the U.S. embassy by Iran in 1979.

“Six successive Presidents have renewed that emergency annually for nearly forty years,” CRS noted, and it “may soon enter its fifth decade… As of March 1, 2019, that emergency is still in effect, largely to provide a legal basis for resolving matters of ownership of the Shah’s disputed assets.”

In ordinary language, a condition that persists for decades cannot properly be termed an “emergency.”

Such “permanent emergencies are unacceptable,” wrote Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice in a March 17 Wall Street Journal op-ed. “Once approved by Congress, states of emergency should expire after six months unless Congress votes to renew them,” she suggested, “and no emergency should exceed five years. Conditions lasting that long are not unforeseen or temporary, which are basic elements of an emergency.”

*    *    *

Some other noteworthy new publications from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

Evaluating DOD Strategy: Key Findings of the National Defense Strategy Commission, CRS In Focus, March 19, 2019

International Trophy Hunting, March 20, 2019

U.S. Global Health Assistance: FY2017-FY2020 Request, CRS In Focus, updated March 14, 2019

U.S. Health Care Coverage and Spending, CRS In Focus, updated March 21, 2019

Federal Disaster Assistance for Agriculture, CRS In Focus, updated March 19, 2019

Europe’s Refugee and Migration Flows, CRS In Focus, updated March 20, 2019

U.S. Intelligence Community (IC): Appointment Dates and Appointment Legal Provisions for Selected IC Leadership, CRS In Focus, updated March 19, 2019

Proposed Air Force Acquisition of New F-15EXs, CRS Insight, March 19, 2019

Judicial Nomination Statistics and Analysis: U.S. District and Circuit Courts, 1977-2018, March 21, 2019

A Low-Yield, Submarine-Launched Nuclear Warhead: Overview of the Expert Debate, CRS In Focus, March 21, 2019

By refusing to disclose his tax returns, President Trump has breached — and may have demolished — the longstanding norm under which sitting presidents and presidential candidates are expected to voluntarily disclose their federal tax returns. At the same time, there is reason to think that new norms of disclosure can be created.

The conditions under which Congress could legally obtain President Trump’s federal tax returns were reviewed in a new assessment from the Congressional Research Service.

CRS “analyzes the ability of a congressional committee to obtain the President’s tax returns under provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC); whether the President or the Treasury Secretary might have a legal basis for denying a committee request for the returns; and, if a committee successfully acquires the returns, whether those returns legally could be disclosed to the public.” See Congressional Access to the President’s Federal Tax Returns, CRS Legal Sidebar, March 15, 2019.

Against this backdrop of defiant presidential secrecy, it is interesting to note that the Department of Defense yesterday disclosed the amount of its FY2020 request for the Military Intelligence Program (MIP), as it has now done for several years. This is a practice that was adopted for the first time by the Obama Administration, even though no law or regulation required it. To the contrary, it had previously been considered classified information. (Disclosure of the budget request for the National Intelligence Program, which also occurred yesterday, has been required by statute since 2010.)

Today, disclosure of the MIP budget request and other intelligence budget information is such a regular event that it is taken for granted. It is one of several new milestones in disclosure of national security information that were achieved in the Obama years, many of which survive to the present.

*    *    *

Some other new and updated publications from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

Arms Control and Nonproliferation: A Catalog of Treaties and Agreements, updated March 18, 2019

Direct Overt U.S. Aid Appropriations for and Military Reimbursements to Pakistan, FY2002-FY2020, updated March 12, 2019

Nord Stream 2: A Fait Accompli?, CRS In Focus, March 18, 2019

U.S. Global Health Assistance: FY2017-FY2020 Request, CRS In Focus, updated March 14, 2019

Low Interest Rates, Part III: Potential Causes, CRS Insight, March 15, 2019

Farm Debt and Chapter 12 Bankruptcy Eligibility, CRS Insight, March 15, 2019

Huawei v. United States: The Bill of Attainder Clause and Huawei’s Lawsuit Against the United States, CRS Legal Sidebar, March 14, 2019

Special Counsels, Independent Counsels, and Special Prosecutors: Legal Authority and Limitations on Independent Executive Investigations, updated March 13, 2019

If the Attorney General decided to withhold portions of the pending report of the Special Counsel, he might justify his decision by citing legal protections for grand jury information and for executive privilege.

But there are exceptions to both of these categories, and Congress has tools of its own to pursue the desired information, the Congressional Research Service said in a new assessment.

With respect to grand jury information in the Special Counsel report, “Congress could opt to seek documents or testimony from grand jury witnesses themselves,” CRS said.

As for executive privilege, it “is generally qualified, and can be surmounted (in court) if Congress can show an overriding need for the information.” See The Special Counsel’s Report: Can Congress Get It?, CRS Legal Sidebar, March 8, 2019 And see, relatedly, The Special Counsel’s Report: What Do Current DOJ Regulations Require?, CRS Legal Sidebar, March 7, 2019.

Other noteworthy new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

Membership of the 116th Congress: A Profile, March 7, 2019

Foreign Agents Registration Act: An Overview, CRS In Focus, updated March 7, 2019

United States European Command: Overview and Key Issues, CRS In Focus, March 12, 2019

The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice, updated March 8, 2019

Strategic Competition and Foreign Policy: What is “Political Warfare”?, CRS In Focus, March 8, 2019

Defense Primer: A Guide for New Members, updated March 8, 2019

Noteworthy new publications from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

Definition of National Emergency under the National Emergencies Act, CRS Legal Sidebar, March 1, 2019

Foreign Affairs Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Funding: Background and Current Status, CRS In Focus, updated March 4, 2019

EU Data Protection Rules and U.S. Implications, CRS In Focus, updated February 7, 2019

Stock Buybacks: Background and Reform Proposals, CRS Legal Sidebar, February 27, 2019

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy: Considering “No First Use”, CRS Insight, updated March 1, 2019

New and updated publications from the Congressional Research Service, some but not all of which are now published at crsreports.congress.gov, include the following.

National Emergency Powers, updated February 27, 2019

Department of Defense Use of Other Transaction Authority: Background, Analysis, and Issues for Congress, updated February 22, 2019

Defense Primer: Electronic Warfare, CRS In Focus, February 26, 2019

U.S. Foreign Assistance, CRS In Focus, updated February 25, 2019

NAFTA Renegotiation and the Proposed United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), updated February 26, 2019

Immigration: U.S. Asylum Policy, February 19, 2019

Uyghurs in China, CRS In Focus, updated February 15, 2019

Firearms Background Checks Under H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112, CRS In Focus, updated February 22, 2019

Arms Sales: Congressional Review Process, updated February 25, 2019

Federal Records: Types and Treatments, CRS In Focus, February 26, 2019

A new free trade agreement (FTA) between the European Union and Japan places the US at a disadvantage, at least temporarily, the Congressional Research Service said. The new agreement entered into force this month.

The two trading partners negotiated what Japan called the “world’s largest, free, industrialized economic zone” without the US partly in response to the Trump Administration’s combative trade policy and its withdrawal from existing trade negotiations.

“The EU and Japan have expressed concerns over recent U.S. tariffs imposed on their products and the perceived waning in U.S. support for the multilateral trading system,” according to a new CRS brief.

“In the absence of a U.S. FTA with either major economy, certain U.S. industries could face competitive disadvantages or lost market share. . . as the EU and Japan enjoy preferential access to each other’s markets,” CRS said.

As the new agreement is implemented, “the United States will be under increased stakeholders’ pressure to secure comparable access to these important markets,” the CRS report said. See EU-Japan FTA: Implications for U.S. Trade Policy, CRS In Focus, February 7, 2019.

Other noteworthy new publications from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

A Brief Comparison of Two Climate Change Mitigation Approaches: Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Tax (or Fee), CRS In Focus, February 12, 2019

Mail and Wire Fraud: A Brief Overview of Federal Criminal Law, updated February 11, 2019

Electrification May Disrupt the Automotive Supply Chain, CRS In Focus, February 8, 2019

A Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court? Legal Questions and Considerations, CRS Legal Sidebar, February 6, 2019

Science and Technology Issues in the 116th Congress, February 6, 2019

The World Oil Market and U.S. Policy: Background and Select Issues for Congress, updated February 4, 2019

Venezuela Oil Sector Sanctions: Market and Trade Impacts, CRS Insight, updated February 11, 2019

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CRS In Focus, updated February 5, 2019

There were no less than 30 “national emergencies” in effect as of February 1, according to a tabulation prepared by the Congressional Research Service. An additional 21 national emergencies that are no longer in effect were also identified by CRS.

Under the National Emergencies Act, a declaration of national emergency can be used to activate presidential powers that would otherwise be unavailable. President Trump has suggested that he could declare a national emergency in order to begin construction of a “wall” along the U.S. border with Mexico without congressional authorization.

See Declarations under the National Emergencies Act, Part 1: Declarations Currently in Effect, CRS Legal Sidebar, February 1, 2019; and Declarations under the National Emergencies Act, Part 2: Declarations No Longer in Effect, CRS Legal Sidebar, February 1, 2019.

Together, the two reports replicate (with some variations) a table prepared lately by the Brennan Center for Justice, which has researched national emergency powers.

* * *

Other new and noteworthy publications from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

The Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, CRS In Focus, January 30, 2019

Executive Branch Ethics and Financial Conflicts of Interest: Disqualification, CRS Legal Sidebar, January 31, 2019

Fifth-Generation (5G) Telecommunications Technologies: Issues for Congress, January 30, 2019

Selecting the World Bank President, updated January 23, 2019

Venezuela: Overview of U.S. Sanctions, CRS In Focus, updated February 1, 2019

U.S.-European Relations in the 116th Congress, CRS In Focus, February 4, 2019

The U.S. Intelligence Community: Homeland Security Issues in the 116th Congress, CRS Insight, updated February 1, 2019

“Migrant Protection Protocols”: Legal Issues Related to DHS’s Plan to Require Arriving Asylum Seekers to Wait in Mexico, CRS Legal Sidebar, February 1, 2019

Drug Trafficking at the Southwest Border: Homeland Security Issues in the 116th Congress, CRS Insight, updated January 31, 2019

The CIA has around 140 projects involving or related to artificial intelligence, CRS noted (citing a 2017 story in DefenseOne). See Artificial Intelligence and National Security, updated January 30, 2019

U.S. Withdrawal from the INF Treaty, CRS Insight, updated February 1, 2019

Evaluating Possible U.S. Troop Withdrawals from Hostile Areas, CRS Insight, February 1, 2019

Noteworthy new publications from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

Bribery, Kickbacks, and Self-Dealing: An Overview of Honest Services Fraud and Issues for Congress, January 30, 2019

China’s Retaliatory Tariffs on U.S. Agricultural Products, CRS In Focus, January 29, 2019

New Law Requires Agencies to Report on Outstanding IG Recommendations, CRS Insight, January 30, 2019

Potential Implications of U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, CRS In Focus, updated January 25, 2019

The Trump Administration’s National Strategy for Counterterrorism: Overview and Comparison to the Prior Administration, CRS Insight, January 29, 2019

A Possible Second U.S.-North Korea Summit: What Diplomacy Has and Hasn’t Achieved, CRS Insight, January 23, 2019

The U.S. Army and Multi-Domain Operations, CRS Insight, January 17, 2019

Redirecting Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Resources During National Emergencies, CRS In Focus, January 28, 2019