A Flawed, but Encouraging Nondelegation Decision
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.
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.
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.
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.
Trump v. Hawaii may block a challenge based on unconstitutional discrimination. But it does not preclude a nondelegation case. Other recent developments may actually bolster that approach.
Next week could be a pivotal one, as a federal appeals court could decide whether to restore an injunction against Trump's tariffs.
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.
Without such intervention, he warns, the government "could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action."
A leading conservative legal scholar explains why striking down Trump's IEEPA tariffs is vital to protecting the separation of powers.
The president treats legal constraints as inconveniences that can be overridden by executive fiat.
that treats the Library of Congress as an Executive Branch department as to Presidential removal of the Librarian.
The federal courts are supposed to be a bulwark against presidential overreach, not a rubber stamp.
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.
No. One of the judges in Wednesday's unanimous ruling was a Trump appointee, and the ruling rested on important legal and constitutional principles.
The Court of International Trade just issued a decision striking down Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs and other IEEPA tariffs.
The Court of International Trade ruled that Trump's emergency economic powers do not include the authority to impose tariffs on nearly all imports.
The president's crusade against attorneys whose work offends him, which defies the First Amendment and undermines the right to counsel, has provoked several judicial rebukes.
Plus: Punk rock comptroller, dunking on Pete Hegseth, France embraces Canadian health care, and more...
The Supreme Court very strongly hinted that it will overrule, or greatly narrow, Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935).
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.
Trump’s firing of a federal agency head may soon spell doom for a New Deal era precedent that limited presidential power.
"Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents."
I was interviewed by Brittany Lewis of Forbes.
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