Abstract
This paper looks at the case for executive constraints in a world of imperfect electoral accountability and policy risk. It develops a model in which policy can be subject to judicial oversight by an imperfectly informed judiciary. Limiting discretion can be good for reducing risk but can worsen incentives creating a non-trivial trade-off for voters. We argue that this is always resolved in favor of executive constraints when looking at the worst case scenario meaning that executive constraints are best justified as a form of robust control.