My New Just Security Article on the Nondelegation and Major Questions Doctrines
It explains how these much-maligned doctrines can be valuable tools for constraining power grabs by presidents of both parties.
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 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.
Trump fired Federal Trade Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya in March. Yesterday he gave up his claim to the job, but he's still challenging the White House's right to dismiss him.
Trump v. Hawaii may block a challenge based on unconstitutional discrimination. But it does not preclude a nondelegation case. Other recent developments may actually bolster that approach.
The case against Michelino Sunseri exemplifies the injustice caused by the proliferation of regulatory crimes—the target of a recent presidential order.
A leading conservative legal scholar explains why striking down Trump's IEEPA tariffs is vital to protecting the separation of powers.
The president treats legal constraints as inconveniences that can be overridden by executive fiat.
that treats the Library of Congress as an Executive Branch department as to Presidential removal of the Librarian.
The podcasts cover the case and its relationship to the more general problem of abuse of emergency powers.
Both are wins for free trade, but only one vindicates the separation of powers.
It explains how the ruling is a win for separation of powers and the rule of law.
The Wall Street Journal, CBC, and Time published good articles on the story behind the case filed by the Liberty Justice Center and myself.
The decision by Judge Rudolph Contreras of the US District Court for the District Columbia holds IEEPA doesn't authorize the president to impose tariffs at all.
No. One of the judges in Wednesday's unanimous ruling was a Trump appointee, and the ruling rested on important legal and constitutional principles.
The president's crusade against attorneys whose work offends him, which defies the First Amendment and undermines the right to counsel, has provoked several judicial rebukes.
I spoke along with my Cato colleague Walter Olson.
Like that in the similar case filed by Liberty Justice Center and myself, this one indicated judicial skepticism of Trump's claims to virtually unlimited power to impose tariffs.
Trump rightly decries the "absurd and unjust" consequences of proliferating regulatory crimes.
Elon Musk promised $2 trillion in cuts but delivered only a tiny portion of that total. We asked seven policy experts to explain what he got wrong.
Steve Inskeep of NPR interviewed me about the case against Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs.
A FOIA lawsuit that seeks executive branch control over the Judicial Conference of the United States and Administrative Office of the United States.
The president’s sweeping import levies have no basis in the statute he cites.
I was one of 35 legal scholars who took part.
A new ACLU lawsuit argues that the government still is not giving alleged gang members the "notice" required by a Supreme Court order.
I was interviewed by Caleb Brown of Cato.
"Nor is it taking a new approach."
Bills introduced Tuesday in the House and Senate would terminate the emergency declaration Trump issued last week.
Plus: A listener asks why some American libertarians seem to unquestioningly accept everything Vladimir Putin says.
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.
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