Federal District Court Issues Another Ruling Against Trump's IEEPA Tariffs
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.
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.
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.
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