The administration continues to try to impose grant conditions on state and local governments that were never authorized by by Congress. In two new decision, courts continue to rule against them.
Against the Imperial Presidency.
The strongest legal argument against Trump's attempt to use emergency powers to build the wall is that declaring an emergency does not authorize him to spend money and condemn property for that purpose. But he also lacks grounds to declare an emergency in the first place.
Congress seems to have authorized this end run around its spending power. Can it do that?
"Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power."
Bargaining over policy is supposed to be frustrating. That's a feature, not a bug, of limited government.
My 2015 critique of Presidents Day is, if anything, even more relevant four years later.
A variety of legal experts weigh in on the subject, including me. Most conclude Trump may have the authority to declare an emergency, but not to spend funds and seize property for the wall.
There is no good justification for what the president is doing. Republicans and conservatives need to call him out on it.
Plus: Congress forgets to fund the First Step Act, The New York Times chastises smug politicians over Amazon, and what if the U.S. were 100 city-states?
A summary of the reasons why Trump lacks the power to use emergency powers to build his border wall, and why it would cause great harm and set a dangerous precedent if he did. Other than that, it's a great idea!
The way the travel ban policy has been implemented both before and after the Supreme Court's decision further underscores the magnitude of the Justices' mistake.
The op ed explains why this option is not legal - and why it would set a dangerous precedent if the president succeeded in doing it.
They correctly warn it would set a dangerous precedent that could be abused by future presidents, including liberal Democrats.
Republicans embrace presidential authoritarianism, continuing a foul bipartisan tradition of legislating immigration through the executive branch.
The op ed was published yesterday in the New York Daily News, but may be even more relevant today.
She's the highest-profile candidate to jump in.
The administration usurps Congress by redefining machine guns.
From the moment he started his improbable run for higher office, Donald Trump has stripped bare all pretensions that politics is about more than "winning."
Progressives appreciate the separation of powers-up to a point.
SCOTUS weighs congressional power, criminal law, and the non-delegation doctrine in Gundy v. U.S.
No great surprises so far. But some notable points nonetheless.
The Post has a symposium in which a a variety of legal commentators (myself included) discuss what they consider to be Judge Kavanaugh's most important opinions.
In 1999, Judge Kavanaugh suggested that the Supreme Court case that forced Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes may have been wrongly decided. But it's not entirely clear what he now thinks about the issue.
The debate over Judge Kavanaugh's views on executive power actually encompasses four separate issues. On some of them his views bode well for the future, on others not so much.
Like Neil Gorsuch, the D.C. Circuit judge has criticized Chevron deference for encouraging executive arrogance.
The story of how classical liberal Justice George Sutherland enabled executive overreach abroad.
The op ed outlines some of the grave flaws in today's Supreme Court ruling.
Some preliminary comments on a badly flawed ruling.
Can the president of the United States be sued for damages in a civil proceeding?
Bilal Abdul Kareem has been nearly droned in Syria five times already. A federal judge agrees his lawsuit over the matter can proceed.
The Supreme Court's ruling was based on state officials' apparent hostility to the bakers' religious beliefs. There is far stronger evidence of such hostility in the travel ban case.
Despite the administration's claims to the contrary, it appears that no such thing exists. Its absence strengthens the constitutional case against the travel ban.
I am reposting my 2016 post on this subject, on the occasion of Kevin Walsh's guest-blogging stint addressing the same issue.
If your "signature achievements" are done by executive power alone, they might as well be written in pencil.
The Donald is more like The Gipper on trade policy than you think. And not in a good way.
The originalist case for a unitary executive falls apart in an era when many of the powers wielded by the executive branch were not originally supposed to be federal powers in the first place.
The justices' comments in the oral argument suggest this will be a close case that could easily go either way. The outcome could well turn on the views of that perennial swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy.
On the eve of the of Supreme Court oral argument in the travel ban case, here are links to some of my more notable VC posts on the subject.
The unauthorized attack on Syria shows Congress won't enforce limits on the president's military powers.
You don't have to be an originalist to conclude that the Constitution requires congressional authorization for war.
A small-scale strike might be constitutional even without congressional support. But it is also likely to be useless, much like last year's missile strike turned out to be. Large-scale military action of the sort that could make a real difference, requires advance congressional authorization.
The brief, which I coauthored on behalf of myself and six other legal scholars explains why the Bill of Rights constrains federal power over immigration no less than other types of federal power.
Many people fear that John Bolton and Donald Trump might start an unnecessary war. But such fears would be unnecessary if Congress were to reclaims it power to initiate war.
The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that the ban violates the First Amendment because it is intended to discriminate against Muslims.
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
