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.
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.
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 thanks
Every 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 interested
So 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 thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks