Trump's Reading of the Alien Enemies Act Defies the Usual Meaning of Its Terms
To justify the immediate deportation of suspected Venezuelan gang members, the president is invoking a rarely used statute that does not seem to apply in this context.
To justify the immediate deportation of suspected Venezuelan gang members, the president is invoking a rarely used statute that does not seem to apply in this context.
"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 decision involved administration attempts to withhold spending on foreign aid contracts, but has much broader implications.
Threats to impeach federal judges who rule against the government are a naked attack on their constitutionally crucial function.
A smaller government with a more powerful set of unaccountable executive officials is unlikely to be much of a win for liberty.
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.
The federal leviathan can’t be dismantled by executive action alone. To truly cut spending and rein in the bureaucracy, the administration needs buy-in from the branch that built it.
Vice President J.D. Vance believes presidents can ignore the courts in some situations. Are we heading for a constitutional crisis?
This will, for the moment, avert what could have been a major legal battle over the spending power.
But at least he restored respect for a tariff-loving predecessor by renaming a mountain.
We have too much rule by decree by whoever currently holds the office of president and a pen.
Despite some notable wins, the president-elect's overall track record shows he cannot count on a conservative Supreme Court to side with him.
Sen. Rand Paul's bill to require congressional consent for tariffs is getting new attention in the final weeks before Trump's return to power.
Brendan Carr’s plans for "reining in Big Tech" are a threat to limited government, free speech, free markets, and the rule of law.
The justices, including Trump's nominees, have shown they are willing to defy his will when they think the law requires it.
Another interesting aside in the Royal Canin oral argument.
The Supreme Court is considering whether a rule targeting "ghost guns" exceeds the agency's statutory authority.
Contrary to public desires, the presidency should be far less powerful.
In charging the former president with illegal election interference, Special Counsel Jack Smith emphasizes the defendant's personal motivation and private means.
The 2024 Democratic platform devotes five paragraphs to firearm restrictions but does not even allude to the Second Amendment.
His criticism of President Joe Biden’s proposed Supreme Court reform is hard to take seriously.
Recent actions by the FTC show that its officers should review the Constitution.
There’s less reason to fight when one-size-fits-all policies are replaced with local diversity.
We need not conjure "extreme hypotheticals" to understand the danger posed by an "energetic executive" who feels free to flout the law.
Plus: A listener asks whether Bruce Springsteen's song Born in the U.S.A is actually patriotic.
There is no textual basis for "immunity" as such, but there are structural reasons why some degree of insulation is inevitable.
Contrary to progressive criticism, curtailing bureaucratic power is not about protecting "the wealthy and powerful."
By requiring "absolute" immunity for some "official acts" and "presumptive" immunity for others, the justices cast doubt on the viability of Donald Trump's election interference prosecution.
The Court says Chevron deference allows bureaucrats to usurp a judicial function, creating "an eternal fog of uncertainty" about what the law allows or requires.
Chevron deference, a doctrine created by the Court in 1984, gives federal agencies wide latitude in interpreting the meaning of various laws. But the justices may overturn that.
The case hinged on the ATF’s statutory authority, not the Second Amendment.
Plus: A listener asks the editors about the Selective Service.
Six justices agreed that federal regulators had misconstrued the statutory definition of a machine gun.
Fifth in a series of guest-blogging posts.
Most of the justices seem skeptical of granting Donald Trump complete immunity from criminal prosecution for "official acts."
The Supreme Court will decide whether former presidents can avoid criminal prosecution by avoiding impeachment and removal.
Several justices seemed troubled by an ATF rule that purports to ban bump stocks by reinterpreting the federal definition of machine guns.
His lawyers assert presidential immunity and discretion, criticize an "unconstitutionally vague" statute, and question the special counsel's legal status.
The case raises an issue of high importance and the opinion may contain some loose reasoning.
The appeals court says it "cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter."
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