Whether or Not Trump Invokes It, the Insurrection Act Is Antiquated and Dangerously Broad
On its face, the law gives the president sweeping authority to deploy the military in response to domestic disorder.
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.
In a 2-1 ruling, the Court ruled Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act cannot supersede a settlement barring deportation of a group of migrants. One judge also held the AEA was invoked illegally.
Kovarsky and Rave defend the use of class actions in AEA habeas cases. Vladeck highlights the significance of the Supreme Court's grant of an injunction to a "putative class" of AEA detainees.
The article explains why these claims to emergency powers are illegal and dangerous, and how to stop them.
In a badly flawed decision, a federal district court ruled that Trump can invoke the AEA because the Tren de Aragua drug gang's activities amount to a "predatory incursion."
Greg Sargent of the New Republic interviewed me.
The White House calls it "the art of the deal," but a 30 percent tariff on imports from China is economically damaging and constitutionally dubious.
Trump rightly decries the "absurd and unjust" consequences of proliferating regulatory crimes.
Outcomes are hard to predict. But the judges seemed skeptical of the government's claim that Trump has virtually unlimited authority to impose tariffs.
One of the justices wrote extensively about when and whether the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended.
Briefs urging the Supreme Court to stay injunctions against the order challenge "the conventional wisdom" about the meaning of an 1898 decision interpreting the 14th Amendment.