4 Takeaways From the Supreme Court's 2025–2026 Term
From executive power to civil liberties, what to make of a momentous year at SCOTUS?
From executive power to civil liberties, what to make of a momentous year at SCOTUS?
The conservative justice pushed for greater executive authority even in cases in which Trump won.
Three different VC bloggers were among the speakers: Jonathan Adler, Keith Whittington, and myself.
Clark Neily discusses the Supreme Court, executive authority, and why federal prosecutors wield too much power.
Trump v. Slaughter is a big win; Trump v. Cook is embarrassing given the posture of the case as explained in the dissents.
The Supreme Court has "no shortage of tools" to enforce the separation of powers, Justice Neil Gorsuch notes. "The only real question is whether we will use them."
The Supreme Court extended presidential control over federal agencies. What could go wrong?
If the laws requiring such agencies to be independent are unconstitutional, it may be that very existence of those agencies is also now illegal.
Tensions between today's two major presidential removal power decisions.
In a pair of decisions on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have full authority to fire heads of executive branch agencies—but that the Fed is different.
As expected, the Supreme Court overturns Humphrey's Executor, but reaffirms the independence of the Federal Reserve.
War making in "the power of a single man" is not what the Founders intended.
Extensive evidence indicates that the decision to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitian migrants was motivated by unconstitutional racial and ethnic discrimination. The Court's ruling on statutory issues also has flaws.
Understanding the 6–3 decision in Mullin v. Doe.
Is the D.C. Circuit willing to allow "conservative" panel decisions on hot-button issues to stand? And is en banc review more than a way to ensure further review at One First Street?
The proposal was nixed only after White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf explained why it was legally dubious.
How a four-decade-old dissent may now help the president fire independent federal agency heads at will
Trump's failure to secure constitutionally required congressional authorization for his war with Iran helped ensure the US lacked the staying power necessary to prevail.
A guest post by Georgetown legal scholar Peter E. Harrell.
The ruling is flawed on both substantive and procedural grounds.
The president has repeatedly argued that courts have no business deciding whether his actions are legal.
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin struck down the fee, saying it exceeds the president's statutory authority and violates the separation of powers.
It's the latest example of Justice Department attorneys claiming broad and unreviewable powers for the president.
The ruling relies in part on the Supreme Court's decision in the tariff case.
They appear to be yet another illegal power grab, one that should be challenged in court.
They claim the injunction requiring refunds cannot be universal, and can only apply to those businesses who filed lawsuits seeking recovery.
Congress can only stop Trump’s actions in Iran by passing a concurrent resolution of both Houses over Trump’s veto, or by declining to fund the war in next year’s budget.
I gave the talk earlier this week.
The decision means the injunction blocking collection of the tariffs will not be blocked while litigation continues.
Videos of my presentation and interview on this topic at a major Italian university.
The 2-1 decision concludes Trump's massive new tariffs are illegal because there is no "balance of payments deficit" of the kind needed to authorize them.
From immigration and guns to executive power, transgender athletes, and mail-in ballots, these are the Supreme Court cases to watch out for in May and June.
Congress hasn't voted to declare war since 1942, yet the legislative branch constantly refuses to rein in presidents.
It limits executive power grabs in this field, as well as others.
Legally, Trump must either cease operations or ask Congress for approval. He did neither, and Congress just went on recess.
Conservative legal commentator Gregg Nunziata outlines reasons why conservatives should reject broad views of executive power.
The plan is not completely terrible. But many importers may still have difficulty getting the refund money owed to them.
The outcome is unclear. But the judges seemed skeptical of the Trump Administration's claims that Section 122 grants them sweeping tariff powers.
The Court of International Trade is weighing the legality of the import taxes that the president wants to impose under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The feeling is perfectly consistent: Graham feels it should be as easy as possible for the U.S. to start a war, and as hard as possible to end one.
I submitted the brief on behalf of the Cato Institute and myself.
"No statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have," U.S. District Judge Richard Leon concluded when he enjoined the project.
Plus: Fox and Sinclair go crying to the FCC over sports streaming, and the Masters ticket lottery makes it too hard to get in
Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden asked the Supreme Court to abolish nationwide injunctions, which allow federal judges to stop a federal policy from going into effect.
There are far too few checks left on executive power.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.