The Courts Should Rein in Trump's Proposed Section 301 Tariffs as Well
A guest post by Georgetown legal scholar Peter E. Harrell.
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.
Donald Trump wants to give it a little more control. Bernie Sanders wants to give it a lot.
Damon Root discusses the path to emancipation, the struggle to secure freedom after the Civil War, and the constitutional changes that remade America.
Presidents use a web of private influence to garner support for foreign invasions.
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.
Colorado's governor agreed with a state appeals court that the former Mesa County clerk had been punished for her wacky beliefs about the 2020 election as well as her illegal conduct.
Videos of my presentation and interview on this topic at a major Italian university.
Nominees include stories on America's gerontocracy, the war on chocolate, how Texas beat California on housing, and more.
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.
The fiscal objection is serious. But the deeper problem is that the proposal misunderstands the saving behavior of the households it aims to help.
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.
Angst, guilt, and more self-awareness than you might expect
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.
Cole Tomas Allen's actions just don't make sense, even in his own words, or in a time of political polarization.
Conservative legal commentator Gregg Nunziata outlines reasons why conservatives should reject broad views of executive power.
"The New Deal made investment in America a risky project," says economist Donald J. Boudreaux, author of The Triumph of Economic Freedom.
Democrats can't muster the votes to impeach and remove Trump, or even to stop an illegal war. The 25th Amendment would be even more difficult.
Plus: ship seizures, the best free bread in America, and more...
The vibe shift that really matters—a reduction in the size, scope, and spending of government—hasn't happened, and America is worse off for it.
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.
The Administration's constitutional arguments are unconvincing, but rejecting them is not necessary to decide United States v. Barbara
"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.
Understanding the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara.
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.
Rather than debating over who should fill the role, Congress and the White House should just eliminate it altogether.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.