Our Amicus Brief in W.M.M. v. Trump - En Banc Fifth Circuit Alien Enemies Act Case
I coauthored the brief on behalf of the the Cato Institute, the Brennan Center for Justice, legal scholars Geoffrey Corn and John Dehn, and myself.
I coauthored the brief on behalf of the the Cato Institute, the Brennan Center for Justice, legal scholars Geoffrey Corn and John Dehn, and myself.
The Trump administration's claims that illegal migration and drug smuggling qualify as an "invasion" or a "predatory incursion" under the Alien Enemies Act go against the major questions doctrine.
Over the last decade, roughly one in every 10 dollars of budget authority has worn an emergency tag.
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in November on whether Trump's use of tariffs is constitutional.
A guest post by Joshua Braver and John Dehn.
It will review a panel decision holding that Trump could not invoke this sweeping wartime authority by claiming illegal migration and drug smuggling qualify as an "invasion."
The cases will be considered on an accelerated schedule.
We agree the Court should take the case and resolve it as quickly as possible, to minimize the harm caused by the illegal tariffs.
The 2-1 ruling is in line with most previous court decisions on Trump's invocation of the AEA. Judge Oldham wrote an extremely long, but significantly flawed, dissent.
In a 7-4 ruling, the en banc court upheld trial court ruling against all the challenged tariffs. The scope of the injunction against them remains to be determined.
The words national emergency are not a magic spell that presidents can utter to unlock unlimited legislative powers for themselves.
If so, then why postpone any enforcement until October?
It makes the case for strong judicial review of executive invocations of sweeping emergency powers.
In each case, tariffs remain much higher than they were before the deals.
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.
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