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.
This crucial procedural issue is now before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Its resolution will determine whether the tariffs are immediately suspended, or get to continue so long as the case is stil being litigated.
Links to my writings about our case against Trump's "Liberation Day" Tariffs and related issues.
It explains how the ruling is a win for separation of powers and the rule of law.
Some of the more informative interviews I have done about our win in the case against Trump's tariffs, in lawsuit filed by the Liberty Justice Center and myself.
The Court of International Trade just issued a decision striking down Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs and other IEEPA tariffs.
The Court of International Trade ruled that Trump's emergency economic powers do not include the authority to impose tariffs on nearly all imports.
I spoke along with my Cato colleague Walter Olson.
I was interviewed by Brittany Lewis of Forbes.
I will be speaking, along with Cato Institute scholar Walter Olson.
The article explains why these claims to emergency powers are illegal and dangerous, and how to stop them.
Greg Sargent of the New Republic interviewed me.
The White House calls it "the art of the deal," but a 30 percent tariff on imports from China is economically damaging and constitutionally dubious.
Outcomes are hard to predict. But the judges seemed skeptical of the government's claim that Trump has virtually unlimited authority to impose tariffs.
Five years after Donald Trump declared a national COVID emergency, here's what the research says.
Plus: A listener asks the editors to name their least favorite national emergency from the list of those currently in effect.
They are allied countries with which the U.S. has a trade deal (a deal negotiated by Trump, no less), but presidential emergency powers are nearly limitless.
The ballot initiative would have put guardrails on the abuse of power from governors who declared states of emergency.
Due to persistent glitches in the financial aid form, Gov. Jim Justice issued an executive order lifting the FAFSA requirement for several state grants.
Let's just call this what it is: another gimmick for Congress to escape its own budget limits and avoid having a conversation about tradeoffs.
Despite their informal nature, those norms have historically constrained U.S. fiscal policy. But they're eroding.
And it isn't the first time.
Lawmakers can take small steps that are uncontroversial and bipartisan to jumpstart the fiscal stability process.
Years ago, when interest rates were low, calls for the federal government to exercise fiscal restraint were dismissed. That was unwise.
The governor's attempt to rule by decree provoked widespread condemnation instead of the applause she was expecting.
No response to authoritarian government actions is quicker or more reliable than non-compliance.
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham thinks violent crime gives her a license to rule by decree.
A new national emergency declaration will allow for the creation of an outbound investment screening system targeting Americans' investments in China.
The Court ruled the plan is illegal, and that at least one plaintiff (the state of Missouri) has standing.
Legislators from both parties worry about unilateral power, but they use it when it’s convenient.
The stunt comes days after Justice Gorsuch warned of officials addicted to emergency decrees.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch highlights a vital lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic.
"Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country," Gorsuch wrote. That might be an exaggeration, but it isn't far off.
Plus: A listener question concerning the key to a libertarian future—should we reshape current systems or rely upon technological exits like bitcoin and encryption?
Plus: Schools suing social media companies, a bitcoin mining tax is a bad idea, and more...
Title 42 expulsions caused great harm for very little benefit. Biden plans to replace them with a combination of policies, some good and some very bad.
Here are three people whose record on COVID-19 shouldn't be forgotten.
It's been over for most Americans for a long time already.
The president signed a Republican-sponsored resolution ending the national emergency declared by President Donald Trump.
Officials used the crisis to impose policies they already supported but couldn't get through the normal legislative process, like bans on evictions.
The message of the hit new series cuts across conventional ideological lines - and features a highly skeptical view of government.
The justices seem to be clearly leaning against the Biden Administration on the merits. The procedural issue of standing is a closer call, though ultimately more likely than not to come out the same way.
It's less bad than Trump-era efforts along the same lines. But saying that is damning with faint praise.
The article explains the broader issues at stake in these cases, and why the Court would do well to rule against the administration.
If so, Title 42 expulsions might finally end. But it's not a done deal yet.
The Biden Administration suggests that the Title 42 case before the Supreme Court will be moot before it is decided.
The panelists included Elizabeth Goitein (Brennan Center, NYU), Daniel Dew (Pacific Legal Foundation), and myself.
The lack of statutory authority is the main issue raised by legal challenges to the plan.
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
