Minnesota Law Review

Note, The Executive Reports, We Decide: The Constitutionality of an Executive Branch Question and Report Period

Currently, Congress acquires information from the executive branch through two primary methods: the legislative subpoena or an “invitation” for an executive official to testify. These approaches are inadequate, the former often too blunt and subject to majority control while the latter too lenient and irregular.

Increased congressional scrutiny of the executive branch is all but certain, thus Congress (and the President) should embrace another information-gathering method: the question and report period. Common in virtually all parliamentary political systems, the question and report period permits elected representatives to directly question ministers and the prime minister during regularly scheduled monthly appearances.

Despite some legislative effort to mandate a question and report period, the legal scholarship contains no analysis of such a proposal’s constitutionality or its compatibility within the U.S. legal system. This Note attempts to fill that void in several ways. First, it provides a brief comparative and historical summary of the question and report period. Second, the Note proposes two constitutional justifications for such a period: the Necessary and Proper Clause and the State of the Union Clause. Third, the Note addresses two formidable barriers: separation of powers and executive privilege.

This Note concludes by outlining the permissible characteristics of an executive branch question and report period and calls on Congress to enact such a provision. Doing so would represent one important step for transparency, accountability, and the primacy of Congress.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Fall Submissions Open – Headnotes

    The Minnesota Law Review: Headnotes fall submissions period is open. For more information, please visit our submissions page. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Vol. 97 Piece Quoted in Mother Jones Article

    A recent Mother Jones article predicting how the Roberts Court would resolve King v. Burwell draws on How Business Fares in the Supreme Court from Volume 97. You can read the article here. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Welcome to De Novo

    For nearly one hundred years, the Minnesota Law Review has been a leader amongst academic legal publications. When Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the journal in 1917, his goal was simple. It was to “contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” Since then, the Law [...]

  • Minnesota Law Review Alum Remembered 45 Years After Death

    Minnesota Law Review alumnus Tom Cranna was honored at the Annual Banquet this Spring, 45 years after his death. Mr. Cranna was remembered for his contributions to the journal, the school, and the positive impact he had on his family and friends. The Devil’s Lake Journal published a memorial which [...]

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]


cforms contact form by delicious:days