D.C. Circuit Upholds Injunction Against Trump's Ballroom
The Constitution assigns control of federal property to Congress, which never approved the president's demolition and replacement of the East Wing.
The Constitution assigns control of federal property to Congress, which never approved the president's demolition and replacement of the East Wing.
The president's latest round of broad import taxes, like the previous two, treats his statutory authority as an afterthought.
The Supreme Court has "no shortage of tools" to enforce the separation of powers, Justice Neil Gorsuch notes. "The only real question is whether we will use them."
The Supreme Court extended presidential control over federal agencies. What could go wrong?
As expected, the Supreme Court overturns Humphrey's Executor, but reaffirms the independence of the Federal Reserve.
War making in "the power of a single man" is not what the Founders intended.
The proposal was nixed only after White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf explained why it was legally dubious.
How a four-decade-old dissent may now help the president fire independent federal agency heads at will
Three different VC bloggers are among the speakers: Jonathan Adler, Keith Whittington, and myself.
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 D.C. Circuit is reviewing an injunction issued by a judge who said "no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have."
The president tramples the rule of law in his rush to glorify himself.
The decision is a modest but welcome victory for the rule of law.
Johnson is seemingly incapable of standing up to the Trump administration, even when one of Congress' core responsibilities is at stake.
It limits executive power grabs in this field, as well as others.
The brief, which asks a federal judge to reconsider an injunction blocking the project, reads like it was transcribed from the president's Truth Social account.
The Justice Department is permanently blocked from prosecuting Californians who fail to register when the state no longer requires it.
Adler v. Shugerman on the Supreme Court's handling of separation of powers concerns on the "shadow docket."
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.
"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.
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 president's predictions of the nation's imminent demise reflect his narcissistic authoritarianism.
The president and his new DHS secretary are enraged by jurists and legislators who refuse to toe the party line.
The president says federal courts should not make decisions based on partisan considerations unless it benefits him.
The president’s invocation of Section 122 conflates a trade deficit with a balance-of-payments deficit.
The president's wildly inaccurate ideological labels are no more meaningful than his other ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with him.
Although Trump has other options for taxing imports, the justices reminded him that he needs clear congressional authorization.
The president is relying on a provision that the government's lawyers said had no "obvious application" to his goal of reducing the trade deficit.
The president neither understands nor appreciates the vital role of judicial independence in upholding the rule of law.
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.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.