Signers include Steve Calabresi, Harold Koh, Richard Epstein, Michael McConnell, Alan Sykes, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and others.
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.
Recent Supreme Court precedent suggests such challenges might prevail, though success is not guaranteed.
The Court will only consider one of the issues in Braidwood Management v. Becerra
Another significant administrative law grant of certiorari (and a dog that didn't bark).
The private nondelegation doctrine is getting an increasing amount of attention from the courts.
A challenge to the FCC's Universal Service Fee could produce a major administrative law decision.
Donald Trump's plan for massive tariff increases is particularly dangerous because the White House could likely implement it without any new congressional authorization.
A majority of the judges concludes this fee constitutes a tax, the authority for which is improperly delegated.
In an interesting dissent, Judge Allison Eid argues it violates existing nondelegation doctrine precedent.
An important challenge to the use of agency adjudication to enforce federal regulations.
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.
The ruling is based on separation of powers and Religious Freedom Restoration Act grounds.
Legal scholar Ilan Wurman argues the controversial doctrine is justifiable on textualist and linguistic grounds.
Justice Department regulations threaten people with prosecution for failing to register even when their state no longer requires it.
Despite a recent Fifth Circuit case, Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936) doesn't limit private delegations.
The Supreme Court has never held that private delegations have any special unfavorable treatment under the Article I Nondelegation Doctrine: quite the opposite!
Despite a recent Fifth Circuit case, there is no private nondelegation doctrine.
A rare, successful nondelegation challenge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Participants include Daniel Farber, Keith Whittington, Cristina Rodriguez, Lisa Heinzerling, and myself, among others.
It was filed by Pacific Legal Foundation public interest lawyer Frank Garrison, and includes a novel strategy for getting around the problem of standing.
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.
Assessing an aggressive Fifth Circuit opinion declaring Securities & Exchange Commission proceedings unconstituional.
My forthcoming article the good, the bad, and the likely implications of the Supreme Court's decision West Virginia v. EPA
The ruling likely allows end of a cruel policy - but also reinforces broad presidential control over immigration.
A federal lawsuit argues that the department's regulations violate due process, the separation of powers, and the First Amendment.
The Biden administration's main priority seems to be leaving the agency's authority vague enough to allow future interventions.
Clarifying the agency's authority could impede future power grabs.
The eviction moratorium and Title 42 "public health" expulsion cases have many parallels that may have been ignored because of their differing ideological valence. Both strengthen the case for nondeferential judicial review of the exercise of emergency powers.
The court ruled the CDC can continue to use its public health power to expel migrants, but not to countries where they are likely to face persecution or torture.
At today's oral argument, the justices explored Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, the major questions doctrine, justiciability and the regulation of advertising for four-foot cigars smoked through hookahs.
An interesting exchange on the implications of early agency power to revise tax assessments.
The Solicitor General and NGO respondents argue that the petitioners lack appellate standing to challenge the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of the Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
Another contribution to recent scholarship on whether the Nondelegation Doctrine is properly rooted in the Constitution's original meaning and founding era understandings.
Does it matter that the year Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act was as proximate to the Spanish Flu as to today?
I wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Cato Institute, addressing the important nondelegation and "major questions" issues raised by the federal government's awful policy.
It still covers some 90% of the country, and still rests on a theory of virtually limitless CDC authority. Even President Biden acknowledges the order is legally dubious.
Thank goodness for small blessings in a public health emergency?
The ruling is unsurprising. But it does further strengthen the case against the moratorium, and increases the odds the issue might eventually make it to the Supreme Court.
The Sixth Circuit's decision is at odds with that of the D.C. Circuit, and features a Judge Thapar concurrence on delegation.
In a careful ruling, Judge Cole concludes Ohio made its case, and enjoins enforcement of the mandate against Ohio.
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
