Estreicher and Babbitt are right to conclude that Trump's tariffs violate the nondelegation doctrine, but wrong to reject other arguments against 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.
Our brief explains why the Federal Circuit should uphold the Court of International Trade decision striking down Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs.
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.
It explains how these much-maligned doctrines can be valuable tools for constraining power grabs by presidents of both parties.
They are prominent legal scholars and Supreme Court litigators from opposite sides of the political spectrum.
Like King Charles, he is abusing emergency powers to impose taxes without legislative authorization.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I will be speaking, along with Cato Institute scholar Walter Olson.
The article explains why these claims to emergency powers are illegal and dangerous, and how to stop them.
Greg Sargent of the New Republic interviewed me.
Outcomes are hard to predict. But the judges seemed skeptical of the government's claim that Trump has virtually unlimited authority to impose tariffs.
Steve Inskeep of NPR interviewed me about the case against Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs.
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.
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."
PLF is a leading libertarian-leaning public interest organization. Their case is similar to that filed by Liberty Justice Center and myself.
The suit resembles previous ones on the same subject filed by the state of California, and by the Liberty Justice Center and myself.
Signers include Steve Calabresi, Harold Koh, Richard Epstein, Michael McConnell, Alan Sykes, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and others.
The degree of agreement among participants with major ideological diferences is striking.
The motion was filed today, and sets out our case in detail.
It explains why the IEEPA "Liberation Day" tariffs are illegal and how our case against them relates to the other three cases challenging Trup's tariffs.
The Liberty Justice Center and I filed the case on Monday.
I was interviewed by Caleb Brown of Cato.
They challenge both the "Liberation Day" IEEPA tariffs, and earlier ones imposed on Canada, Mexico and China.
It was filed today in the US Court of International Trade.
They argue the tariffs violate the constitutional separation of powers and their tribal treaty rights.
Even after Trump paused some of his new tariffs for 90 days, we still have the highest average tariffs in over a century and the biggest trade war since the Great Depression. Real relief will only come if Congress or the courts deny Trump the power to do this.
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
