Tariff Fight: California vs. Texas
The economics of spite.
The Supreme Court may have reached the wrong result in FCC v. Consumers Research. But ruling emphasizes there are significant constitutional limits to legislative delegation to the executive.
The trade deficit is getting bigger, the deals aren't coming, and foreign investment has declined.
It explains how these much-maligned doctrines can be valuable tools for constraining power grabs by presidents of both parties.
The Federal Reserve is unwilling to lower interest rates because "there will be some inflation from tariffs coming," Jerome Powell told a Senate committee.
They are prominent legal scholars and Supreme Court litigators from opposite sides of the political spectrum.
An outdated supply management system—designed to protect Quebec’s small dairy farms—is undermining Canada's global trade ambitions and hurting its own consumers.
Refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers, washing machines, and dryers are among the products subject to the president’s 50 percent tariff on imports derived from aluminum and steel.
Like King Charles, he is abusing emergency powers to impose taxes without legislative authorization.
Triple-digit bilateral tariffs have been brought down to double digits. Negotiations on semiconductors and rare earth elements will continue.
It's disappointing. But the court will hear the case on the merits on an expedited basis, and we have a strong case.
The article describes how the two can be mutually reinforcing, building on lessons from previous episodes in constitutional history.
Yoo's criticisms are off the mark, for a variety of reasons. But, tellingly, he actually agrees Trump's IEEPA tariffs are illegal, merely disagreeing with the court's reasons for reaching that conclusion.
The CIT ruling is much stronger than Prof. Goldsmith contends. The same is true of a related ruling by federal District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras.
Most imports to the U.S. are raw materials, intermediate parts, or equipment—the stuff that manufacturing firms need to make things.
Next week could be a pivotal one, as a federal appeals court could decide whether to restore an injunction against Trump's tariffs.
This crucial procedural issue is now before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Its resolution will determine whether the tariffs are immediately suspended, or get to continue so long as the case is stil being litigated.
In a petty, public war of words, Trump threatens to cut off federal support to Musk's companies after the billionaire attacked his deficit-busting budget bill.
In a 1978 appearance at Utah State University, the Nobel Prize–winning economist provided the perfect retort to those who blindly argue we should "build in America."
A new comprehensive review finds the negative effects of trade with China have been significantly exaggerated.
Plus: A love letter to the heavy metal band Slayer.
The poll finds 55% approve and only 30% disapprove of the recent ruling against his IEEPA tariffs.
A leading conservative legal scholar explains why striking down Trump's IEEPA tariffs is vital to protecting the separation of powers.
That total will rise to about $3 trillion once the interest costs of more borrowing are included.
The president treats legal constraints as inconveniences that can be overridden by executive fiat.
Probably yes, says Jed Rubenfeld; no, says Philip Zelikow.
Links to my writings about our case against Trump's "Liberation Day" Tariffs and related issues.
Plus: Drilling in the Alaskan wilderness, Harvard tries "wastefulness" argument, Stephen Miller tells on himself, and more...
Trump's trade war has created a carve-out bonanza for industries with political connections and big lobbying budgets.
The MAGA loyalty that Trump demands is anathema to everything that originalism is supposed to be about.
The real case for free trade is not "my enemies hate it" or "it's cheaper for me, personally" but "it makes the world richer, freer, and more peaceful."
Out-of-control housing costs helped Trump win the 2024 election. Is he about to make the problem worse?
The podcasts cover the case and its relationship to the more general problem of abuse of emergency powers.
Both are wins for free trade, but only one vindicates the separation of powers.
For both practical and constitutional reasons, this is the obvious way out of the chaos Trump's tariffs have created.
It explains how the ruling is a win for separation of powers and the rule of law.
The Wall Street Journal, CBC, and Time published good articles on the story behind the case filed by the Liberty Justice Center and myself.
Plus: Javier Milei puts state-run TV to good use, Texas' THC antagonism, rent control lunacy, and more...
Some of the more informative interviews I have done about our win in the case against Trump's tariffs, in lawsuit filed by the Liberty Justice Center and myself.
The decision by Judge Rudolph Contreras of the US District Court for the District Columbia holds IEEPA doesn't authorize the president to impose tariffs at all.
This is a standard order imposing a brief stay of the trial court ruling, while the parties litigate the issue of whether a longer stay should be imposed.
No. One of the judges in Wednesday's unanimous ruling was a Trump appointee, and the ruling rested on important legal and constitutional principles.
The Court of International Trade just issued a decision striking down Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs and other IEEPA tariffs.
The Court of International Trade ruled that Trump's emergency economic powers do not include the authority to impose tariffs on nearly all imports.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks