Trump Has a Habit of Asserting Broad, Unreviewable Authority
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."
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.
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.
Seven judges agreed that the president's assertion of unlimited authority to tax imports is illegal and unconstitutional.
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.
Congress holds the power of the purse in our system of government, and further eroding congressional responsibility for spending decisions will not end well.
Or will the justices say that Trump fired her for illegal reasons?
The president's plan to promote public safety by deploying troops in cities across the country is hard to reconcile with constitutional constraints on federal authority.
The use of government force to achieve political advantage is dangerous and sets a bad precedent.
Donald Trump is no stranger to wasteful spending. But these examples are especially egregious.
The 2016 brief defended the understanding of the 14th Amendment that the president wants to overturn.
The latest escalation in the showdown between the Trump administration and D.C. elected officials
The article explains why the policy is unconstitutional, but also why it is unlikely to be challenged in court in the near future.
The president is on a record-shattering pace for executive actions.
The words national emergency are not a magic spell that presidents can utter to unlock unlimited legislative powers for themselves.
When the line between public and private is erased, politics is all about special favors. That's gross.
The president is claiming "unbounded authority" to impose import taxes based on a law that does not mention them.
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 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.
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."