Two Audio Interviews About the Alien Enemies Act Litigation
Links to audios of a Cato Institute podcast and an interview with ABC News (Australia).
Links to audios of a Cato Institute podcast and an interview with ABC News (Australia).
The participants were Adam Cox (NYU) and myself.
"Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," Roberts noted after Trump said federal judges who impede his agenda should be fired.
The removals challenge Humphrey’s Executor, a Supreme Court precedent that protects independent agency officials from political firings.
President Trump acts to remove two Democratic commissioners from the Federal Trade Commission. Litigation is likely.
Plus: Texas midwife arrested for violating abortion ban, JFK files, Gaza bombings, astronauts finally rescued, and more...
They used the Act to deport some 137 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador even after a federal court issued a temporary restraining order blocking such action.
The president says those legislators are "subject to investigation at the highest level," notwithstanding their pardons and the Speech or Debate Clause.
Trump is destroying a valuable source of American "soft power" and an inspiration to people suffering under authoritarian regimes.
If courts allow Trump to get away with using the Act in peacetime, it would set a dangerous precedent.
The article is coauthored with Cato Institute scholar David Bier.
The cowardice of Congress will continue fueling the growth of executive power.
Presidential pardons have become a tool of favoritism and politics.
Threats to impeach federal judges who rule against the government are a naked attack on their constitutionally crucial function.
While overturning sentences through courts can take years, a grant of clemency is instantaneous.
The panel did not believe the Office of Special Counsel could be distinguished from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or Federal Housing Finance Authority.
For now, President Trump has removed Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel.
A smaller government with a more powerful set of unaccountable executive officials is unlikely to be much of a win for liberty.
Making policy and passing laws is supposed to be difficult and should be left to the messy channels established by the Constitution.
A discussion of whether and when the Supreme Court might overturn Humphrey's Executor v. United States.
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.
A district court judge has concluded that President Trump cannot remove the head of the Office of Special Counsel without cause. Supreme Court review is inevitable.
The presidential adviser's lack of formal authority complicates his cost-cutting mission.
The president is positioning himself to have much greater control over a smaller, enfeebled federal bureaucracy.
The move effectively retcons J.D. Vance's claim that legal Haitian immigrants were actually here illegally.
There's little question that Trump is taking the concept of the imperial presidency to its apogee.
His position is grounded in concerns about the separation of powers that presidents of both major parties have raised for many years.
In Captain America: Brave New World, a power-hungry president makes reckless choices and withholds vital information—but even he looks competent compared to Biden and Trump.
Vice President J.D. Vance believes presidents can ignore the courts in some situations. Are we heading for a constitutional crisis?
Federal judges in Washington and Maryland say the president's attack on birthright citizenship flouts the 14th Amendment and 127 years of judicial precedent.
The full transcript shows the president's complaints about the editing of the interview are not just wildly hyperbolic and legally groundless. They are demonstrably false.
Recent Supreme Court precedent suggests such challenges might prevail, though success is not guaranteed.
The company is worried that the president's complaints about a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris could block a pending merger.
In four years, Biden issued regulations costing an estimated $1.8 trillion, by far the highest total in American history.
Firing members of "independent" agencies would seem to set up a direct challenge to a longstanding precedent.
Jack Goldsmith offers his analysis.
The executive order contradicts the 14th Amendment and 127 years of judicial precedent.
The article explains why the order is unconstitutional and why letting it stand would be very dangerous, including for the civil liberties of US citizens.
A law passed in 2022 requires the president to give Congress a "substantive rationale" for removing inspectors general. Trump has not done that.
But at least he restored respect for a tariff-loving predecessor by renaming a mountain.
They are allied countries with which the U.S. has a trade deal (a deal negotiated by Trump, no less), but presidential emergency powers are nearly limitless.
We have too much rule by decree by whoever currently holds the office of president and a pen.
Biden’s preemptive pardons and Trump’s blanket relief for Capitol rioters both set dangerous precedents.
The most important thing in any name is not what some official institution or a collection of old maps says. Spontaneous order tends to rule the day.
Plus: Pardoning the Proud Boys, revoking birthright citizenship, Elon Musk's not-a-Nazi-salute, and more...
His last-minute acts of clemency invite Trump and future presidents to shield their underlings from the consequences of committing crimes in office.
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