For the moment, the executive "memorandum" is long on rhetoric, but short on actual action. If it ever does lead to action, it could be yet another attack on federalism and separation of powers.
It's a power grab that could undermine federalism and separation of powers, and imperil property rights.
A court should decide that question by interpreting the state Bill of Rights, the New Hampshire Supreme Court says; it shouldn't conclude that this is a "political question" to be decided purely by the Legislature and the people.
Both major parties defend the Constitution only when it's convenient.
At the same time, the court punts on whether the House has standing to challenge allegedly unlawful expenditure by Executive Branch.
Will his blunt self-aggrandizement reinvigorate concerns about presidents who exceed their powers?
Look for the full appellate court to send the case back to the trial court - which is where it belongs.
Department of Homeland Security
The lack of Senate-confirmed officers at DHS is a serious problem.
The article critiques the majority decision, and outlines a better way to limit Congress' subpoena power.
Vance strikes me as compelling and correct. Mazars creates a complex and unwieldy balancing test.
Former federal judge Michael Luttig thinks that the D.C. Circuit did not really understand what was at stake.
SCOTUS rules 5–4 in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Crime Victims Rights Amendment
A 2-1 ruling concludes that the district court cannot even hold a hearing on the subject.
The decision says the "unbridled and unfettered consolidation of authority in one unelected official" violates due process and the separation of powers.
The ruling says the state's top health official exceeded her statutory authority by ordering "nonessential" businesses to close.
Courts are beginning to recognize that public health powers, while broad, are not a blank check.
A seemingly arcane dispute about administrative law has profound implications for the limits of public health authority.
Why the Supreme Court can rule in favor of Congress in the Trump financial records cases without thereby giving Congress any unlimited power.
The scheme, created by a concurrent resolution, is inconsistent with the Kansas Emergency Management Act. A legislative council's decision to overrule the Governor's church shutdown order has thus been invalidated, and the church shutdown is back in effect.
A "drafting snafu" with the Legislature's concurring resolution, which endorsed the Governor's initial emergency order, is casting many things in doubt.
Adjudication Outside Article III (part two)
The Senate minority leader threatened two justices by name, and then he lied about it.
The presidential candidate reserves the right to wage unauthorized wars, kill Americans in foreign countries, prosecute journalists, and selectively flout the law.
Other possible legal challenges to Trump's expanded travel ban may be precluded by the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Hawaii. This one is not.
Republicans are setting a dangerous precedent they may come to regret the next time a Democrat occupies the White House.
The legal basis for such a ruling is hard to find.
John Bolton may have critical evidence relevant to the House impeachment inquiry; why hasn't the House subpoenaed his testimony?
An important development in the legal wrangling over the separation of powers.
An amicus filing in the case challenging the Emergency Declaration's diversion of funds towards building the Wall
The Supreme Court will consider a constitutional challenge to the composition of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Thirteen legal scholars weigh in, including the VC's Keith Whittington and myself.
Plus: FBI rebuked by FISA court, how Harris could come back, and more…
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders convinced the Fifth Circuit to declare the Federal Housing Finance Agency's structure unconstitutional, but they're seeking Supreme Court review nonetheless.
While there may be sound political reasons to let voters decide Trump's fate, there are sound constitutional reasons to clarify the limits of his authority.
In a newly filed brief with the Supreme Court, the Justice Department claims the Consumer Financial Protection Board's structure is unlawful.
Top justice rules that trying to push a criminal case forward over prosecutors’ objections is a violation of separation of powers.
It's a win for Trump; but only on procedural grounds. The broader legal battle over the wall is far from over.
The senator and the president she wants to unseat are determined to have their way, regardless of what the law says.
The decisions expand on the same judge's earlier preliminary ruling holding that the president cannot reallocate military funds to build his border wall.
The United States is currently operating under 32 different national emergencies. This proposal would require Congress approve those declarations within 72 hours, and again after 90 days.
From Prof. Jonathan Nash (Emory), an expert on Congressional standing.
An interesting separation of powers question coming in the Female Genital Mutilation statute / Commerce Clause / Religious Freedom Restoration Act / Dawoodi Bohra litigation.
The first court decision on Trump's plan to reallocate federal funds to "build the wall" goes against the administration.
When politicians tell you we are in a constitutional crisis, you shouldn’t take it at face value.
The California senator claims she could impose "near-universal background checks" and close the "boyfriend loophole" without new legislation.
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
