Under Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, the President has the “executive power” of the United States. Much has been written about what the Framers intended when drafting this language in the Constitution. Most recent, in Zivotofsky v. Kerry, the Supreme Court determined that the Nation must “speak with one voice” with regard to policy about the legitimacy of foreign governments vis-à-vis the United States.

This foreign policy constitutional principle has important ramifications for how courts should address forum non conveniens analyses with regard to the adequate available forum. The Supreme Court neglected to provide substantive guidance in Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno with respect to the adequate available forum, leaving the lower courts to fend for themselves in determining when a forum is both adequate and available. As a result, lower court decisions are deeply divided as to when and how to dismiss a case to a foreign forum that is adequate and available.

This article posits that the courts are not the branch of government best suited to make this determination. Rather, the executive, as demonstrated through a critical review of Supreme Court separation of powers cases, is uniquely positioned to opine on whether a foreign judiciary can provide an adequate available forum. By deferring to the executive with respect to questions that involve such keys issues of foreign policy, courts avoid political landmines that are best left to the executive.

Emotional intelligence dictates that individuals react in a certain way because they are wired to respond emotionally to certain triggers. These emotional triggers can be either positive or negative. Those who understand the use of negative emotional intelligence can channel manipulative behavior into concrete outcomes as a direct result of the feelings created. Negative emotional intelligence thus can be used to perpetuate groupthink, which leads to bias, prejudice, stereotypes, and stigmatization.

Bias, both deliberate and implicit, is still prevalent with regard to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT’) community despite the strides and advances that have occurred since the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. This proposition is demonstrated in “religious freedom” arguments presented in the Supreme Court case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It is also apparent in the Department of Defense’s “national security” approach to transgender individuals. The use of these terms — “religious freedom” and “national security” — allows people to mask their implicit bias and permits marginalization of this minority group.

This Article will demonstrate that by using the lenses of religious freedom, religious speech, and national security, anti-LGBT bias can be disguised and the dignity of LGBT individuals harmed. These lenses allows individuals to argue that it is not homophobic to refuse to bake a cake or take wedding photos, or that it is not transphobic to ban transgendered individuals from military service, but rather it is a principled stand based on religious beliefs and national security. To counter these negative attacks, positive emotional intelligence must be reinforced through reiterating and reflecting on how values such as equality and dignity should uphold the social good and not be used to harm a disenfranchised and minority group.