A federal appeals court recently delivered a significant setback to Donald Trump’s tariff agenda. The court ruled that the president’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs was illegal, as the law doesn’t grant the power to levy taxes. This decision largely affirms an earlier ruling, rejecting the argument that tariff imposition falls within the president’s foreign policy authority. While the court acknowledged the president’s constitutional authority, it emphasized that the power to tax belongs to Congress. The White House has stated that they will continue to work on this matter, with Trump himself criticizing the ruling and predicting the Supreme Court would allow his tariffs.
Read More
Trump’s global tariffs are unlawful, appeals court says, and that’s a pretty straightforward statement. It’s the kind of news that makes you think, “Well, duh,” especially when you consider the whole situation. The court case has been dragging on for eight months, and the fact that the tariffs were allowed to stay in place while the legal wrangling unfolded is, frankly, a little infuriating. It essentially allowed these allegedly unlawful actions to continue for a significant period, with no immediate consequences. It’s the kind of thing that breeds cynicism, isn’t it?
The response from Trump, as reported, was pretty dramatic. Warning that blocking the tariffs “would literally destroy the United States of America” feels like an overwrought reaction, to say the least.… Continue reading
Friday’s ruling from a federal appeals court further complicated former President Trump’s economic agenda, specifically regarding his imposition of tariffs. The court found Trump lacked the authority to enforce a majority of his broad tariffs on imported goods. This decision constitutes another significant legal hurdle for the trade policies central to his administration’s approach. The ruling directly challenges the president’s power to unilaterally enact such tariffs, impacting trade relationships with numerous nations.
Read More
In a solo opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the Supreme Court’s handling of the Trump administration’s legal battles, likening it to a game of “Calvinball” where the administration always prevails. Jackson described the NIH case as the latest instance of the court favoring the Executive Branch, highlighting the potential consequences for both the law and the public. This statement marked a departure from her colleagues, as she did not have the support of the other Democratic appointees. Jackson expressed hope that affected parties could maintain their claims long enough for the court to reconsider its stance.
Read More
The Trump administration has requested the Supreme Court to stay a federal judge’s order that restricted immigration agents in Los Angeles from stopping individuals based on factors like “apparent ethnicity” and language. This case centers on whether immigration agents can use such characteristics as part of the “reasonable suspicion” standard for detentions. The litigation stems from arrests at a bus stop in June, leading to a temporary restraining order by a district judge, which was then unsuccessfully challenged in the 9th Circuit. The Supreme Court is now considering whether to allow agents to continue using these factors while the lawsuit proceeds.
Read More
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday prohibiting the burning of the American flag, despite the Supreme Court’s precedent in Texas v. Johnson that deems it protected symbolic speech. While acknowledging the court’s ruling, Trump asserted that flag burning incites violence and riots. The order would impose a one-year jail sentence for those who violate the ban. Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court for comment.
Read More
A federal judge has mandated that Alabama lawmakers redraw state Senate districts, citing a violation of the Voting Rights Act due to the dilution of Black voters’ influence in the Montgomery area. The judge ordered the creation of a new district in Montgomery where Black voters would have a majority or close to it, barring the use of the current map in the 2026 elections. This ruling stems from a 2021 lawsuit alleging the packing and extraction of Black voters to diminish their electoral strength in Montgomery, although no violation was found in Huntsville. The NAACP, along with other groups, brought the lawsuit, and while celebrating the win, continue to seek more comprehensive changes.
Read More
In a recent, highly complex Supreme Court case, *National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association*, the justices issued an obscure order regarding the Trump administration’s cancellation of public health grants, many of which were for critical research projects. The central issue revolved around a jurisdictional dispute: which court should hear the case, the district court or the Court of Federal Claims? A fractured court, with no clear majority, ultimately resulted in a split decision where the district court was the proper venue for some parts of the case and the claims court was the venue for others. This complex ruling, as Justice Jackson points out, appears to be designed to obstruct the rule of law, ensuring that the administration’s actions will remain unchallenged.
Read More
The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration, allowing the National Institutes of Health to cut $783 million in research funding as part of a push to reduce federal diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The 5-4 decision, however, blocked the administration’s broader anti-DEI directive from being used for future funding cuts. The ruling allows the administration to proceed with grant cancellations while a lawsuit continues, while plaintiffs argue the decision harms public health. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, criticizing the outcome and the court’s use of emergency appeals.
Read More
In a Supreme Court case regarding President Trump’s cancellation of NIH grants, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply criticized the conservative justices for their decision, labeling it as “Calvinball jurisprudence.” Jackson argued that the court’s ruling, which forces plaintiffs to pursue a complex legal process for monetary damages, effectively neuters judicial review and favors the Trump administration. This decision, according to Jackson, allows the cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars in grants without providing a clear path for plaintiffs to seek complete relief. Jackson accused her conservative colleagues of making up the rules as they go, prioritizing political outcomes over established legal principles.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood