The Senate's Failure To Rein in Trump on Iran Is Part of a Long History of Congress Abdicating Its War Powers
War making in "the power of a single man" is not what the Founders intended.
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.
A new book revisits this 50-year-old Watergate report as President Donald Trump pursues his own politically motivated investigations.
The Trump administration keeps trying to find legal loopholes, but the will of the people is the final judge of any major policy.
There was little rhyme or reason to the president's "emergency" tariffs, which fluctuated wildly depending on his mood.
The bill would not only codify Trump's actions into law, it would establish a framework for both this and future administrations to do it too.
A war by any other name must still be authorized by Congress.
Plus: a pause on power plant bombing, an executive order to fund the TSA, a tentative plan to end the DHS shutdown, and more…
From Korea to Iran, the United States has employed countless euphemisms that not only obscure the true nature of its wars but also the constitutional limits designed to constrain them.
His work further demonstrates that the AEA cannot be used in response to illegal migration or drug smuggling, but only when there is a military attack.
The president’s invocation of Section 122 conflates a trade deficit with a balance-of-payments deficit.
LJC is the group with which I worked on the IEEPA tariff case decided by the Supreme Court.
The massive new tariffs are illegal, just like the IEEPA tariffs previously invalidated by the Supreme Court.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks