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.
Yoo's criticisms are off the mark, for a variety of reasons. But, tellingly, he actually agrees Trump's IEEPA tariffs are illegal, merely disagreeing with the court's reasons for reaching that conclusion.
The CIT ruling is much stronger than Prof. Goldsmith contends. The same is true of a related ruling by federal District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras.
Links to my writings about our case against Trump's "Liberation Day" Tariffs and related issues.
The podcasts cover the case and its relationship to the more general problem of abuse of emergency powers.
It explains how the ruling is a win for separation of powers and the rule of law.
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.
I was interviewed by Brittany Lewis of Forbes.
Greg Sargent of the New Republic interviewed me.
Outcomes are hard to predict. But the judges seemed skeptical of the government's claim that Trump has virtually unlimited authority to impose tariffs.
Steve Inskeep of NPR interviewed me about the case against Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs.
This is a key issue in cases seeking to limit executive branch power grabs, including Trump's tariffs. Judge Ryan Nelson (a conservative Trump appointee) explains why the president is not exempt from the doctrine.
We also covered the issue of the administration's failure to properly obey court orders and the looming threat of a "constitutional crisis."
PLF is a leading libertarian-leaning public interest organization. Their case is similar to that filed by Liberty Justice Center and myself.
The suit resembles previous ones on the same subject filed by the state of California, and by the Liberty Justice Center and myself.
Signers include Steve Calabresi, Harold Koh, Richard Epstein, Michael McConnell, Alan Sykes, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and others.
The motion was filed today, and sets out our case in detail.
It explains why the IEEPA "Liberation Day" tariffs are illegal and how our case against them relates to the other three cases challenging Trup's tariffs.
The Liberty Justice Center and I filed the case on Monday.
It was filed today in the US Court of International Trade.
They weren't authorized by Congress and go against the major questions and nondelegation doctrines.
Georgetown law Prof. Jennifer Hillman explains why Trump's tariffs are vulnerable to challenge on this basis.
Recent Supreme Court precedent suggests such challenges might prevail, though success is not guaranteed.
Survey data casts doubt on the textualist rationale for the major questions doctrine that I and others have advanced. But perhaps not as much doubt as it might seem.
In today's student loan decision, Justice Barrett offers a textualist rationale for this controversial rule. I have made similar arguments myself.
Legal scholar Ilan Wurman argues the controversial doctrine is justifiable on textualist and linguistic grounds.
Critics claim the doctrine is obviously at odds with textualism. But that isn't the case.
Originalist legal scholars Mike Ramsey and Mike Rappaport debate whether the major questions doctrine - an important theory underlying several recent Supreme Court decisions - can be squared with originalism or not.
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