Trump Orders New 10 Percent 'Global Tariff' After Supreme Court's Rebuke
The new tariff will be implemented under a 1974 law that gives the president authority to impose tariffs for up to 150 days.
The new tariff will be implemented under a 1974 law that gives the president authority to impose tariffs for up to 150 days.
"will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is."
There are many laws that explicitly authorize the president to impose taxes on imports, but they include limits that Trump was keen to avoid.
"There is no exception to the major questions doctrine for emergency statutes," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize tariffs.
The story is an exercise in pettiness but also a perfect reason why Congress and the Supreme Court should limit the president's power grab.
Plus: Speaker of the House Mike Johnson embraces warrantless ICE searches, the Super Bowl halftime culture war, and Trump continues funding the Department of Education
Trump's call to "nationalize elections" leads prominent election law scholar Rick Hasen to reverse his longstanding support for such a policy.
Trump's endorsements of Viktor Orbán and Sanae Takaichi, like Clinton's support for Boris Yeltsin or Obama's opposition to Benjamin Netanyahu, do not make America great.
Limited government means those in power can do limited damage to the rest of us.
Trump’s legal arguments “would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve,” the justice said.
A House rule prohibiting tariff resolutions from coming to the floor will expire at the end of the month and is unlikely to be renewed.
The antiquated statute arguably allows the president to deploy the military in response to nearly any form of domestic disorder.
Vice President J.D. Vance on the nature of power
No one likes high interest rates on credit cards and loans, but artificially lowering interest rates via executive power is not a solution.
Presidential non-acquiescence in Humphrey's Executor from 1989 to 2009.
Humphrey's Executor from 1969 to 1989.
Almost every president since 1945 has refused to accept Humphrey's Executor as having been correctly decided.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt did his best to defend presidential removal power at will notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s lawless decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
Every President from 1921 to 1933 successfully defended presidential removal power at will.
The Supreme Court’s January docket is packed with big cases.
That embarrassing mistake highlights the slipperiness of Trump's attempts to justify legally dubious policies by invoking the specter of "foreign terrorist organizations."
Every president from 1901 to 1921 successfully defended presidential removal power at will.
If an indictment is enough to justify military action, why bother seeking congressional approval?
Every president from 1881 to 1901 successfully defended presidential at-will removal power.
Here as elsewhere, lethargy in the legislature is no way to counter execss energy in the executive.
Maduro is a brutal dictator who is getting what he deserves. But Trump's actions are still illegal, because lacking proper congressional authorization. Whether they result in a beneficial regime change in Venezuela remains to be seen.
The president asserted broad powers to deport people, impose tariffs, and deploy the National Guard based on his own unilateral determinations.
An opportunity to work at the nation's leading libertarian think tank.
Presidents, legislators, and police officers were desperate to blame anyone but themselves.
Is unfettered majority rule actually a good idea for the left to embrace?
The justices suggested the president is misinterpreting "the regular forces," a key phrase in the statute on which he is relying.
As one of Mamdani's top advisers, Khan has been making a list of all the "authorities that the mayor can unilaterally deploy."
A recent White House proclamation further expands his previous travel bans, to the point of barring nearly all legal migration from some 40 countries. Legally, it further underscores that Trump is claiming virtually unlimited executive power to restrict immigration,a claim that runs afoul of the nondelegation doctrine.
The Supreme Court should take a page from its own history.
Why the Executive Power Vesting clause of Article II compels a holding that the President has the power to remove Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter.
Plus: It's the final day of Reason's webathon.
On the eve of Trump v. Slaughter, the D.C. Circuit offers a way to distinguish Humphrey's Executor.
NRO's Andrew McCarthy on why strike on defenseless survivors of strike on drug boat was "at best, a war crime under federal law."
Now, under Johnson's leadership, the House has changed its rules to make it even harder for lawmakers to signal their opposition to Trump's tariffs.
Blowing up boats won’t stop drugs—but it could sink Trump.
Sen. Rand Paul explains why he wants the Epstein files released, lays out his case against Trump’s tariffs and military strikes in Venezuela, and argues that he and Rep. Thomas Massie are the last voices in Congress still committed to libertarian ideals.
Trump's decision to reduce the tariffs on Swiss goods came just days after a Swiss delegation lavished the president with a variety of expensive gifts.
They say a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. But failing to get indictments has been a hallmark of the second Trump administration.
The Trump administration's claims that illegal migration and drug smuggling qualify as an "invasion" or a "predatory incursion" under the Alien Enemies Act go against the major questions doctrine.
For the justices, the question is just how much deference the president deserves.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.