Trump Has a Habit of Asserting Broad, Unreviewable Authority
Whether he is waging the drug war, imposing tariffs, deporting alleged gang members, or fighting crime, the president thinks he can do "anything I want to do."
Whether he is waging the drug war, imposing tariffs, deporting alleged gang members, or fighting crime, the president thinks he can do "anything I want to do."
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis promised that the federal government would reimburse the state for the costs of "Alligator Alcatraz," but doing so would make the detention facility subject to environmental reviews Florida ignored.
Such a gun ban is not authorized by statute or allowed by the Second Amendment.
The same legal theory that tripped up Joe Biden's student loan scheme could also sink Donald Trump's tariffs.
A federal judge cleared the way for Jennifer Heath Box's lawsuit against the cops who misidentified her as a fugitive, despite a "mountain of evidence" that they had the wrong woman.
The Justice Department reportedly is considering a regulation aimed at disarming "mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria."
The appeals court blocked the removal of alleged Venezuelan gang members under that law "because we find no invasion or predatory incursion."
The federal law relies on a risible reading of the Commerce Clause to restrict a constitutional right.
Donald Trump's claim that the appeals court ruled against him for partisan or ideological reasons is hard to take seriously.
Plus: Rogue sheriffs, Trump life coaching, Trump family cryptocurrency, and more…
Seven judges agreed that the president's assertion of unlimited authority to tax imports is illegal and unconstitutional.
Trump went "beyond the authority delegated to the President," the court ruled, but it vacated an injunction that could have provided immediate tariff relief to American businesses.
The appeals court rejected most of the arguments in favor of that policy, saying "the government must show non-intoxicated marijuana users pose a risk of future danger."
A recent federal appeals court decision underlines the importance of that safeguard.
The appeals court concluded that the government had failed to show that policy is consistent with "this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
A federal district court judge granted environmentalist groups’ request for a preliminary injunction.
The 2016 brief defended the understanding of the 14th Amendment that the president wants to overturn.
There’s no historical precedent for trying to ration constitutionally protected rights.
A video by the White House corroborates that account, calling into question just how serious the president is about actually addressing crime.
The words national emergency are not a magic spell that presidents can utter to unlock unlimited legislative powers for themselves.
For years, the president has rightly railed against those oppressive regimes. So why is his administration targeting their victims?
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is seeking an injunction that would protect noncitizens at The Stanford Daily from arrest and removal because of their published work.
In a rare and significant decision, a federal court ruled Brandon Fulton can sue directly under the Takings Clause—without Congress creating a specific remedy.
The president is claiming "unbounded authority" to impose import taxes based on a law that does not mention them.
Joe and Russell Marino will finally get their day in court. The ruling represents a turning of the tide when it comes to the fairness of such proceedings, where agencies have long played both prosecutor and jury.
The appeals court held that the government may require COVID-19 shots based purely on the benefits to recipients.
President Trump’s invocation of emergency powers to impose tariffs faces skeptical judges.
The case is a baffling reminder that the more power a government official has, the harder it is for a victim to get a shot at justice.
Canada accounts for a tiny percentage of fentanyl smuggling, which cannot be stopped by trying harder.
If so, then why postpone any enforcement until October?
To win in court, the Trump administration will have to argue against a pair of legal theories that conservatives have spent years developing as a way to check executive power.
A federal court concluded the official was entitled to qualified immunity in a case that united two unlikely allies.
Local officials initially were unfazed by complaints that the constant surveillance raised serious privacy concerns.
The twist underscores just how little accountability exists in civil forfeiture, which allows law enforcement to seize assets without charging the owner with a crime.
Golden State ammunition restrictions have been voided for violating the Second Amendment.
A federal judge ruled that Peninsula Township’s former restrictions on music, events, and grape sourcing violated the rights of local wineries.
The judgment is not surprising, since the president's reading of the 14th Amendment contradicts its text and history, plus 127 years of Supreme Court precedent.
The contrast between the two cases illustrates the haphazard impact of an arbitrary, constitutionally dubious gun law.
The ruling upholds protections afforded to officers of the "quasi legislative or quasi judicial agencies" created by Congress.
The alleged incident goes to the heart of the objections raised by critics who worry about Bove's respect for the rule of law.
Judge James C. Ho recently described a troubling phenomenon on the 5th Circuit and the government abuse it enables.
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.
The government’s lawyers also say that supposedly nonexistent policy is perfectly consistent with the First Amendment.
The taxes on sound suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns, originally enacted in 1934, were meant to be prohibitive, imposing bans in the guise of raising revenue.
Class actions and Administrative Procedure Act claims can achieve much the same result as the nationwide orders that the Supreme Court rejected.
The ruling tells an interesting story about how the very body that created a cause of action for victims of federal abuse has since worked to undermine that right.
Tellingly, the president avoided defending his dubious interpretation of the 14th Amendment at the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is considering whether the president properly invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members.