The Trump administration's claims that illegal migration and drug smuggling qualify as an "invasion" or a "predatory incursion" under the Alien Enemies Act go against the major questions doctrine.
Some observations from yesterday's argument in Learning Resources v. Trump.
This is the second lawsuit challenging the policy, which is both illegal and likely to cause great harm if allowed to stand.
The case was filed yesterday by a broad coalition of different groups, including a health care provider, education groups, religious organizations, and labor unions.
The plan violates the relevant visa law. If allowed to stand, it would significantly harm productivity and innovation.
House Republicans passed a resolution that prevents Congress from ending the national emergency Trump is using to impose tariffs until March 31.
The cases will be considered on an accelerated schedule.
The Administration's arguments have more doctrinal support than some might think
In a 7-4 ruling, the en banc court upheld trial court ruling against all the challenged tariffs. The scope of the injunction against them remains to be determined.
I participated along with Andrew Morris of the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
The case raises many of the same issues as our case against Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs.
Estreicher and Babbitt are right to conclude that Trump's tariffs violate the nondelegation doctrine, but wrong to reject other arguments against them.
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.
Our brief explains why the Federal Circuit should uphold the Court of International Trade decision striking down Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs.
The Supreme Court may have reached the wrong result in FCC v. Consumers Research. But ruling emphasizes there are significant constitutional limits to legislative delegation to the executive.
It explains how these much-maligned doctrines can be valuable tools for constraining power grabs by presidents of both parties.
It explains why a nondelegation challenge could work and deserves to win, despite Trump v. Hawaii.
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.
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.
He has banned nearly all new immigration and other entry by citizens of twelve countries, and imposed severe restrictions on seven more.
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.
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.
The Court of International Trade just issued a decision striking down Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs and other IEEPA tariffs.
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.
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.
I was interviewed by attorney/podcaster Irina Tsukerman.
The president’s sweeping import levies have no basis in the statute he cites.
We also covered the issue of the administration's failure to properly obey court orders and the looming threat of a "constitutional crisis."
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.
I was interviewed by Caleb Brown of Cato.
They challenge both the "Liberation Day" IEEPA tariffs, and earlier ones imposed on Canada, Mexico and China.
It was filed today in the US Court of International Trade.
Even after Trump paused some of his new tariffs for 90 days, we still have the highest average tariffs in over a century and the biggest trade war since the Great Depression. Real relief will only come if Congress or the courts deny Trump the power to do this.
They violate the major questions doctrine set forth by the Roberts Court and must be stopped by a nationwide injunction.
The lawsuit raises nondelegation and major questions doctrine arguments.
They weren't authorized by Congress and go against the major questions and nondelegation doctrines.
The Liberty Justice Center and I are looking for appropriate plaintiffs to bring this type of case. LJC (a prominent public interest law firm) can represent them pro bono.
Georgetown law Prof. Jennifer Hillman explains why Trump's tariffs are vulnerable to challenge on this basis.
