Small Business Owners Celebrate Supreme Court Striking Down Trump's Tariffs
The battle against the president's so-called reciprocal tariffs is won, but the war for free trade and a stable business environment continues.
The battle against the president's so-called reciprocal tariffs is won, but the war for free trade and a stable business environment continues.
There are many laws that explicitly authorize the president to impose taxes on imports, but they include limits that Trump was keen to avoid.
A grand jury and a federal judge rejected the president’s vendetta against legislators who produced a video about the duty to refuse unlawful military orders.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon notes that Sen. Mark Kelly's comments about unlawful military orders were "unquestionably protected" by the First Amendment.
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.
Three Republicans defected to vote down an arcane procedural rule that would have made it impossible for the House to vote on Trump’s tariffs until August.
The lawyer, who delivered the grudge-driven indictments that the president demanded, refused to relinquish her job after another judge ruled that her appointment was illegal.
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.
The plan violates multiple constituitonal provisions and goes against Supreme Court precedent. If somehow allowed to stand, it would gravely imperil federalism and the separation of powers.
If an indictment is enough to justify military action, why bother seeking congressional approval?
The president asserted broad powers to deport people, impose tariffs, and deploy the National Guard based on his own unilateral determinations.
The justices suggested the president is misinterpreting "the regular forces," a key phrase in the statute on which he is relying.
The Supreme Court should take a page from its own history.
The 3rd Circuit’s ruling against Alina Habba highlights a disturbing pattern of legal evasion.
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.
Trade deficits are not a "national emergency," and the president's import taxes won’t reduce them.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't grant the president the power to regulate imports with tariffs. Even if it did, these tariffs would still be unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut concluded that the president's description of "War ravaged Portland" was "simply untethered to the facts."
The Trump administration has already claimed the power to raise taxes without congressional approval. Now it is going to spend money that way too.
Another in a long line of court decisions striking down Trump efforts to attach conditions to federal grants that were not approved by Congress.
Whether he is waging the drug war, imposing tariffs, deporting alleged gang members, or fighting crime, the president thinks he can do "anything I want to do."
Donald Trump's claim that the appeals court ruled against him for partisan or ideological reasons is hard to take seriously.
Seven judges agreed that the president's assertion of unlimited authority to tax imports is illegal and unconstitutional.
Congress holds the power of the purse in our system of government, and further eroding congressional responsibility for spending decisions will not end well.
A district court ruling that Ms. Habba has been unlawfully exercising the powers of the New Jersey U.S. Attorney ducks the critical question of who can exercise those powers ... which is strong reason for doubting the ruling's reasoning.
The Court concludes that limitations on the removal of NLRB Board members and NLRB administrative law judges are both unconstitutional.
The latest escalation in the showdown between the Trump administration and D.C. elected officials
The article explains why the policy is unconstitutional, but also why it is unlikely to be challenged in court in the near future.
The president is claiming "unbounded authority" to impose import taxes based on a law that does not mention them.
A defendant has challenged Acting New Jersey U.S. Attorney Alina Habba's appointment under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, but he has no real case under the statute's plain language.
The Department's filing makes a strong case that Habba's appointment is proper. The courts should quickly reject defendants' challenge to the appointment.
Acting through through Section 546, or temporarily through the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, the Attorney General is entitled to appoint U.S. Attorneys for the District of New Jersey and all other federal judicial districts. If done properly, such appointments preempt any need for judges to appoint U.S. Attorneys. But it is important that the President submit a nominee for the position for Senate confirmation.
Steve Calabresi's argument that judges cannot make such interim appointments is ultimately unpersuasive, as the Appointments Clause specifically allows Congress to vest such power in the Judiciary.
The attorney general can appoint interim U.S. Attorneys to successive 120-day terms of office unless the nominee is someone to whom the Senate has refused to give advice and consent by a vote either in committee or on the floor.
I participated along with Andrew Morris of the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
It's an obvious abuse of emergency powers, a claim to unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, and a threat to the economy and the rule of law.
The diversity and quality of the briefs opposing Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs speaks for itself.
The Cato Institute and the New Civil Liberties Alliance urge the Federal Circuit to extend the logic of a decision against the president's far-reaching import taxes.
Class actions and Administrative Procedure Act claims can achieve much the same result as the nationwide orders that the Supreme Court rejected.
Tellingly, the president avoided defending his dubious interpretation of the 14th Amendment at the Supreme Court.
It explains how these much-maligned doctrines can be valuable tools for constraining power grabs by presidents of both parties.
Trump's attack on Iran plainly violates the War Powers Act. Limits on executive power are most important when they are inconvenient.
Although the appeals court said the president probably complied with the law he invoked to justify his California deployment, it emphasized that such decisions are subject to judicial review.
The ruling is the latest in a long line of court decisions striking down executive efforts to attach conditions to federal grants that were not approved by Congress.
The government's lawyer told a 9th Circuit panel the president's deployments are "unreviewable," so he need not even pretend to comply with the statute on which he is relying.
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