Trump’s presidency may have amplified executive power, but unless lawmakers roll back those powers—and the bloated government behind them—the next administration will do the same.
Long-ago debates about executive authority are not as distant as they might initially seem.
The decision “erodes core constitutional principles, including sovereign States’ control over their States’ militias and the people’s First Amendment rights,” Judge Susan P. Graber warned in her dissent.
The potential for deadly error underlines the lawlessness of the president’s bloodthirsty anti-drug strategy.
Will the Supreme Court grant Trump the overwhelming judicial deference he demands?
Plus: the “No Kings” protests, Trump pays troop salaries during government shutdown, and the continued bombing of drug boats in Venezuela
The correct answer is: Yes, even when they are also regulations. Whether the Court agrees could determine the future of presidential power.
The Court of Appeals unanimously refused to stay a trial court ruling against Trump, signaling the judges believe his use of the Guard is illegal.
Until now, the president concedes, interdiction has been "totally ineffective." Blowing up drug boats won't change that reality.
This is the second lawsuit challenging the policy, which is both illegal and likely to cause great harm if allowed to stand.
We’ll take less government however we can get it.
A guest post by Joshua Braver and John Dehn.
If the courts try to enforce legal limits on the president's military deployments, he can resort to an alarmingly broad statute that gives him more discretion.
Federal troops are also ill-suited to handle local policing issues.
As Illinois resists the federal immigration blitz, the Trump administration ups the ante on authoritarian rhetoric.
The federal government can't even pass a budget. What's it doing buying a mine?
Shadowy deals and unilateral powers created Florida's notorious immigration detention camp.
In a new Supreme Court term packed with big cases, these disputes stand out.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut concluded that the president's description of "War ravaged Portland" was "simply untethered to the facts."
The case was filed yesterday by a broad coalition of different groups, including a health care provider, education groups, religious organizations, and labor unions.
The president thinks he can transform murder into self-defense by executive fiat.
The Trump administration has already claimed the power to raise taxes without congressional approval. Now it is going to spend money that way too.
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."
Which version of the chief justice will emerge in the Supreme Court’s newest term?
The prominent originalist legal scholar argues the Constitution does not require that the president have the power to fire executive branch officials.
Federal officers policing Washington, D.C., on Trump's orders appear to be driving crime down, but the plan is neither constitutionally sound nor viable in the long term.
Plus: the Comey indictment, Trump deploys the National Guard to Portland, Eric Adams exits New York City's mayoral race, and a listener asks about cyclical theories of history
The order lists "anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity" as common threads among "domestic terrorists," though all are protected by the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court will soon review the president’s authority to fire “independent” agency heads.
In her new book, 107 Days, the former vice president reminds us that she is ever the prosecutor.
Congress placed the term in the law but chose not to define it, leaving that task for future regulators.
The president’s attempt to evade the major questions doctrine deserves to be rejected.
The plan violates the relevant visa law. If allowed to stand, it would significantly harm productivity and innovation.
Plus: Pam Bondi flunks free speech 101.
Whether he is waging the drug war, imposing tariffs, deporting alleged gang members, or fighting crime, the president thinks he can do "anything I want to do."
The president's new approach to drug law enforcement represents a stark departure from military norms and criminal justice principles.
Equating drug trafficking with armed aggression, the president asserts the authority to kill anyone he perceives as a threat to "our most vital national interests."
With Congress essentially AWOL, the courts offer the only real check on presidential power.
A billion-dollar rebrand won’t change the fact that defense hasn’t meant defense in decades.
The same legal theory that tripped up Joe Biden's student loan scheme could also sink Donald Trump's tariffs.
Killing suspected drug traffickers is both unjust and illegal. And it could be the start of an effort to turn the already awful War on Drugs into something more like a real war, thereby making it even worse.
Plus: A momentous date in the life of Frederick Douglass
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.
The appeals court blocked the removal of alleged Venezuelan gang members under that law "because we find no invasion or predatory incursion."
Plus: Bombing "narco-terrorists" in the Caribbean, American manufacturing shrinks for the sixth consecutive month, Massie wants the Epstein files, and more...
Donald Trump's claim that the appeals court ruled against him for partisan or ideological reasons is hard to take seriously.
"The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity," the Supreme Court wrote in a ruling this year.
