Federal Circuit Judges Question Trump's Discovery of Vast Tariff Powers
The president is claiming "unbounded authority" to impose import taxes based on a law that does not mention them.
The president is claiming "unbounded authority" to impose import taxes based on a law that does not mention them.
The turning point was the New Deal.
President Trump’s invocation of emergency powers to impose tariffs faces skeptical judges.
And generations of allegedly anti-corruption Republicans just don't care.
Canada accounts for a tiny percentage of fentanyl smuggling, which cannot be stopped by trying harder.
If so, then why postpone any enforcement until October?
With near-total control of Congress, Nayib Bukele’s party eliminated key limits on presidential power.
It makes the case for strong judicial review of executive invocations of sweeping emergency powers.
Even though the president has lost every time the orders have come before a judge, big law firms are still hesitant to upset the king and incur his wrath.
To win in court, the Trump administration will have to argue against a pair of legal theories that conservatives have spent years developing as a way to check executive power.
The judgment is not surprising, since the president's reading of the 14th Amendment contradicts its text and history, plus 127 years of Supreme Court precedent.
The case raises many of the same issues as our case against Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs.
The ruling upholds protections afforded to officers of the "quasi legislative or quasi judicial agencies" created by Congress.
Will the en banc court agree? Will the Supreme Court?
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 Federal Trade Commission ignored mandatory regulatory impact analyses in an attempt to institute its "click-to-cancel" rule.
The Constitution requires the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
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.
The Cato Institute and the New Civil Liberties Alliance urge the Federal Circuit to extend the logic of a decision against the president's far-reaching import taxes.
Why Edward Snowden deserves not only a presidential pardon, but a hero's welcome home.
The ban is a bad law. But leaving it on the books and willfully ignoring it sets a potentially more dangerous precedent.
Several of the items on the Declaration's list of grievances against King George III also apply to Donald Trump today.
Class actions and Administrative Procedure Act claims can achieve much the same result as the nationwide orders that the Supreme Court rejected.
But, notably, the court chose not to rule on the issue of what qualifies as an "invasion."
Tellingly, the president avoided defending his dubious interpretation of the 14th Amendment at the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is considering whether the president properly invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members.
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.
“Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,” declared Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
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.
This pivot to privately funded research could reduce the burden on taxpayers and lead to more scientific breakthroughs.
Any decisions made by U.S. Steel's executives and shareholders will require approval from Trump, his appointees, or his successors.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.) discusses the War Powers Resolution he co-sponsored with Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), the Israel-Iran conflict, and why the antiestablishment left and right must work together.
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.
Trump's attack on Iran plainly violates the War Powers Act. Limits on executive power are most important when they are inconvenient.
Although the appeals court said the president probably complied with the law he invoked to justify his California deployment, it emphasized that such decisions are subject to judicial review.
The government's lawyer told a 9th Circuit panel the president's deployments are "unreviewable," so he need not even pretend to comply with the statute on which he is relying.
On its face, the law gives the president sweeping authority to deploy the military in response to domestic disorder.
Joe Biden showed that the 25th Amendment doesn't work. Donald Trump showed that impeachment is broken too.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer concluded that the president failed to comply with the statute he cited—and violated the 10th Amendment too.
It explains why a nondelegation challenge could work and deserves to win, despite Trump v. Hawaii.
Trump's policy here is yet another example of abusive invocation of emergency powers.
Plus: When Stalin Meets Star Wars.
The border is no longer the focus. Now, the White House wants you to believe that the crisis extends to nail salons, hardware stores, farms, and restaurants across the country.
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