Graber shows that the act used by Trump to federalize the California National Guard does not allow the president to take this step in response to low-level violence and disorder.
I participated along with Andrew Morris of the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
The case raises many of the same issues as our case against Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs.
Estreicher and Babbitt are right to conclude that Trump's tariffs violate the nondelegation doctrine, but wrong to reject other arguments against them.
Academics are supposed to discover nonobvious, counterintituitive truths. But, especially in recent years, much of my work involves defending positions that seem obvious to most laypeople, even though many experts deny them.
It's an obvious abuse of emergency powers, a claim to unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, and a threat to the economy and the rule of law.
The diversity and quality of the briefs opposing Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs speaks for itself.
Katherine Yon Ebright and Leah Tulin of the Brennan Center make the case against judicial deference to Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
Our brief explains why the Federal Circuit should uphold the Court of International Trade decision striking down Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs.
But, notably, the court chose not to rule on the issue of what qualifies as an "invasion."
The deployment of National Guard soldiers on a DEA drug raid is a serious test of whether the Posse Comitatus Act means something or not.
They are prominent legal scholars and Supreme Court litigators from opposite sides of the political spectrum.
The strikes violate both the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act. Whether they are good policy is a more difficult question. This could turn out to be a rare instance where one of Trump's illegal actions has beneficial results.
The ruling gets several important issues right - and one big one wrong.
Like King Charles, he is abusing emergency powers to impose taxes without legislative authorization.
Trump's policy here is yet another example of abusive invocation of emergency powers.
It's disappointing. But the court will hear the case on the merits on an expedited basis, and we have a strong case.
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.
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.
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.
Links to my writings about our case against Trump's "Liberation Day" Tariffs and related issues.
The brief was filed on behalf of the Brennan Center, the Cato Institute, law-of-war scholar Prof. John Dehn, and myself.
The podcasts cover the case and its relationship to the more general problem of abuse of emergency powers.
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.
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.
The Court of International Trade just issued a decision striking down Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs and other IEEPA tariffs.
I spoke along with my Cato colleague Walter Olson.
Legal scholar Rebecca Ingber offers some strong arguments against deference in this context.
Like that in the similar case filed by Liberty Justice Center and myself, this one indicated judicial skepticism of Trump's claims to virtually unlimited power to impose tariffs.
I was interviewed by Brittany Lewis of Forbes.
A new Cato Institute study by David Bier presents the most extensive available evidence on these points.
The article explains why these claims to emergency powers are illegal and dangerous, and how to stop them.
In a badly flawed decision, a federal district court ruled that Trump can invoke the AEA because the Tren de Aragua drug gang's activities amount to a "predatory incursion."
Outcomes are hard to predict. But the judges seemed skeptical of the government's claim that Trump has virtually unlimited authority to impose tariffs.
I have long warned of this dangerous implication of the argument that illegal migration qualifies as "invasion."
Steve Inskeep of NPR interviewed me about the case against Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs.
Trump admits he could return migrant illegally deported to El Salvador. And an intelligence community report concludes the Tren de Aragua drug gang isn't controlled by the Venezuelan government.
The Southern District of New York rules Trump invoked the Act illegally, because there is no "invasion" or "predatory incursion."
This is a key issue in cases seeking to limit executive branch power grabs, including Trump's tariffs. Judge Ryan Nelson (a conservative Trump appointee) explains why the president is not exempt from the doctrine.
By giving one man the power to impose massive tariffs anytime he wants, Trump's policy undermines the predictability and impartiality that the rule of law requires.
Federal district court Judge Fernando Rodriguez ruled that Trump invoked the AEA illegally, and that migrants threatened with deportation under the Act can file class action habeas petitions.
I was interviewed by attorney/podcaster Irina Tsukerman.
I was one of 35 legal scholars who took part.
We also covered the issue of the administration's failure to properly obey court orders and the looming threat of a "constitutional crisis."
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
