The Trump administration has requested the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of his tariff policies, despite rulings against them from two lower federal courts. The petition itself presents factual claims that, if taken seriously, would likely lead the Court to strike down the tariffs under the “major questions doctrine.” However, the Court’s Republican justices have seemingly used this doctrine inconsistently, applying it against Democratic President Biden while potentially seeking a way to exempt Trump. This doctrine has no legal basis and appears to be a tool used selectively to invalidate policies, potentially offering an exception for foreign policy decisions.
Read More
Following a federal appeals court ruling that deemed his trade tariffs illegal, Donald Trump has appealed to the US Supreme Court. The court’s decision last week centered on the “liberation day” border taxes implemented on most US imports, which the court found overstepped his presidential powers. Trump’s administration has requested an accelerated schedule, aiming for arguments by November and a ruling by year-end, as a defeat could significantly impact the US tariff rate and existing trade deals. The tariffs were implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, though this has been contested, and several companies have already reported negative effects of the tariffs, including a slump in sales.
Read More
President Trump’s tariffs, which imposed duties as high as 145% on some countries, face a Supreme Court challenge after a federal appeals court ruled they were unlawfully enacted. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court’s decision, the Treasury could be forced to refund over $210 billion in tariff revenue to American businesses. While businesses await potential refunds, economic experts caution that such a move could lead to increased government borrowing and potentially fuel inflation. Therefore, the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision on the legality of the tariffs has wide-ranging implications for both businesses and the overall economy.
Read More
The Brazilian Supreme Court commenced a five-day trial phase to determine the fate of former President Jair Bolsonaro, who faces a potential 43-year prison sentence for allegedly plotting a coup after losing the 2022 election. Judge Alexandre Moraes emphasized the court’s independence from external pressures, as Bolsonaro stands accused of attempting to establish a “real dictatorship” through a “criminal organization” seeking to overturn the election results. The charges include orchestrating a plan to declare a state of emergency and assassinate political rivals, with the court’s final decision expected by September 12. The proceedings, viewed as a critical test of democracy, have already sparked tension with the United States, while Bolsonaro’s supporters and detractors clashed outside his residence.
Read More
The Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, citing the act was improperly invoked. The court determined that Trump’s claims of a “predatory incursion” or “invasion” by the gang did not meet the criteria for using the wartime authority. This ruling, likely to reach the Supreme Court, represents the first appellate court to closely examine the issue. While the court found the notice period compliant, a dissenting judge argued the required seven-day notice did not sufficiently provide due process to unrepresented detainees.
Read More
Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and seven allies, including high-ranking military officials, are on trial for allegedly attempting a coup, marking an unprecedented moment in Brazilian history. Accused of orchestrating a plot to overturn the 2022 election results, Bolsonaro faces potential decades in prison. The Supreme Court began the trial, with judges expected to render a verdict after televised hearings. Amidst the proceedings, former US President Donald Trump has intervened, imposing tariffs and sanctions in a bid to derail the trial, which has stirred both domestic and international debate on the maturity of Brazil’s democracy.
Read More
The Trump administration faces the potential of returning nearly $100 billion in customs duties, according to analysts, following a court ruling on the legality of tariffs. The US Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s ruling, determining that Trump acted unlawfully by implementing broad import levies without Congressional approval. Although the appeals court voted in favor of the initial judgment, the tariffs remain in effect while the Trump administration appeals to the Supreme Court. These tariffs, first introduced in February, have generated approximately $100 billion in extra customs duties.
Read More
The Supreme Court is considering a case, *Louisiana v. Callais*, that could significantly weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The state of Louisiana is arguing against the use of race in redistricting, potentially leading to the elimination of Black-majority districts. The Court is examining whether compliance with Section 2 of the VRA violates the 14th or 15th Amendments, indicating a possible intention to dismantle the law. If the Court finds Section 2 unconstitutional, it could jeopardize the existence of numerous Black-majority districts in Southern states. The ruling could potentially dismantle a cornerstone of voting rights protections, which has already been challenged in past Supreme Court decisions.
Read More
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley, a conservative, announced on Friday that she will not seek reelection, creating an open seat on a court currently controlled by a 4-3 liberal majority. Bradley’s departure follows conservative losses in the last two statewide Supreme Court races, including one heavily funded by Elon Musk. The upcoming election for Bradley’s seat, scheduled for April 7, 2026, will likely draw national attention as the court addresses key issues like abortion, redistricting, and election laws. The race is particularly significant given Wisconsin’s status as a critical battleground state.
Read More
A federal appeals court ruled that most of President Trump’s global tariffs were illegal, significantly impacting his trade policies. The court determined that the law Trump invoked to impose the tariffs, including his “reciprocal” tariffs, did not grant him the necessary power. The ruling pauses its effect until October 14th, giving the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court. The case originated from lawsuits challenging Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the court found that the tariffs’ scope exceeded the president’s authority.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker