Unconstitutional limbo: why the Smithsonian Institution may violate the separation of powers doctrine
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5380/rinc.v4i3.50286Keywords:
unconstitucional, separation of powers, Smithsonian Institution, American Administrative Law, governmental entity.Abstract
With the opening of the National Museum of African-American History, people are once again coming in mass to the National Mall to see the Smithsonian’s newest edition. And just about everyone in America knows of the Smithsonian--its name recognition is well over 90% in public surveys. Each year 30 million people visit the Smithsonian museums along the National Mall in Washington, D.C., the National Air and Space Museum, the National Museum of American History, and the National Museum of Natural History among them. But is that about to change? The Smithsonian is an odd government entity. Despite its private, non-profit status, the Smithsonian still receives federal funds, is chartered by an Act of Congress, employs a majority civil service staff, and operates through a board overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Vice President, and legislators from the United States Senate and Congress. As such, the Smithsonian has been deemed a governmental entity is some instances and a private entity in others. However, with a new bill being introduced to Congress and recent Supreme Court precedent regarding government instrumentalities, the Smithsonian may face dissolution of its current supervisory board less it run the risk of violating the separation of powers doctrine.
References
BATTIATA, Mary. Saudi Gift Controversy at the Smithsonian. Washington Post, Washington, 9 oct. 1985. Available at: <https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1985/10/09/saudi-gift-controversy-at-the smithsonian/ac61fda89bf5-4398-9b78-296ed18e7678/>.
CURRIE, David P. The Smithsonian. The University of Chicago Law Review, Chicago, vol. 70, n. 1, p. 65-71, jan./mar. 2003.
DELLINGER, Walter. The Constitutional Separation of Powers Between the President and Congress. Opinion of the Office of Legal Concern, Washington, vol. 20. p. 124-18, may 1996. Available at: < https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1996/05/31/op-olc-v020-p0124_0.pdf>.
GOODE, George Brown (Ed.). The Smithsonian Institution, 1846-1896, The History of its First Half Century. New York: De Vinne Press, 1897.
HIRSCH, Arthur. Smithsonian Cancels Exhibit on Atomic Bomb. Baltimore Sun Times, Baltimore, jan. 31 1995. Available at: <http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-01-31/features/1995031159_1_heyman-atomic-enola-gay>.
KMIEC, Douglas W. The Status of the Smithsonian Institution Under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. Opinion of the Office of Legal Concern, Washington, vol. 12, 122-127, june 1988. Available at: <https://www.justice.gov/file/24096/download>.
MANNING, John F. Separation of Powers As Ordinary Interpretation. Harvard Law Review, Cambridge, vol. 124, p. 1942-2040, 1939.
MITTAL, Anu K. Key Federal Agencies’ and the Smithsonian Institution’s efforts to Identify and Repatriate Indian Human Remains and Objects. Available at: <http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/126466.pdf>.
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION. General History. Smithsonian Archives. Available at: <http://siarchives.si.edu/history/general-history>.
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION. Legal Nature of the Smithsonian. Available at: .
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION. Memorandum for the Director, Office of Personnel Management from Assistant Attorney General Ulman. Opinion of the Office of Legal Concern, Washington, vol. 3, 1979.
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION. Smithsonian Institution FY 2016 Budget Justification to Congress. Available at: <http://www.si.edu/content/pdf/about/fy2016-budgetrequest.pdf>.
STRAUSS, Peter. Formal & Functional Approcaches to Separation of Powers Questions – A Foolish Inconsistency? Cornell Law Review, New York, vol. 72, n. 3, p. 488-526, mar. 1987.
UNITED STATES. Memorandum for the Director, Office of Personnel Management from Assistant Attorney General Ulman. Opinion of the Office of Legal Concern, Washington, vol. 3, 274-242, 1979.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish in this Journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of Constitutional Research the right of first publication with the article simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International which allows sharing the work with recognition of the authors and its initial publication in this Journal.
- Authors are able to take on additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the paper published in this Journal (eg.: publishing in institutional repository or as a book), with a recognition of its initial publication in this Journal.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish their work online (eg.: in institutional repositories or on their personal website) at any point before or during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as increase the impact and the citation of the published work (see the Effect of Open Access).




















