The Supreme Court has agreed to expedite a case concerning President Trump’s authority to impose broad tariffs, with arguments scheduled for November. The case challenges the legality of these tariffs, which were implemented using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). A federal appeals court previously found the tariffs were illegally implemented, potentially leading to refunds. The outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications, potentially setting clearer boundaries on presidential trade actions and impacting the government’s ability to collect duties.
Read More
A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration illegally deployed the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles in response to protests against anti-immigration policies, violating the Posse Comitatus Act. The judge determined that the administration used armed soldiers and military vehicles for crowd control and other actions, despite the absence of a rebellion or inability of civilian law enforcement to respond. The ruling blocks the administration from further troop deployments in California, though the order is paused pending a potential appeal. This decision followed a lawsuit from Governor Gavin Newsom and raises concerns about the limits of presidential authority regarding the use of the military domestically.
Read More
Judge Charles Breyer ruled President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles illegal, citing violations of the Tenth Amendment and exceeding presidential authority. The order returns control of the California National Guard to the state, effective immediately. Breyer’s decision also highlighted threats to protesters’ First Amendment rights and the state’s inability to utilize the Guard for essential services. The Trump administration has appealed the ruling, while Governor Newsom warned of a broader threat to state sovereignty and democracy nationwide.
Read More
A resurfaced 2020 video shows President Trump stating that National Guard deployment requires a governor’s request, directly contradicting his recent actions in California. Despite California Governor Newsom’s request to withdraw the National Guard, Trump deployed 2,000 troops to Los Angeles, leading to arrests and escalating violence. Newsom subsequently filed a lawsuit, alleging Trump illegally federalized the National Guard and threatened to deploy troops to other states without governors’ consent. Trump responded by suggesting Newsom’s arrest.
Read More
This memorandum authorizes the deployment of up to 2,000 National Guard personnel, for a period of 60 days or as deemed necessary by the Secretary of Defense, to protect federal personnel and property from violence related to immigration enforcement. The deployment is in response to recent incidents and credible threats against ICE and other federal agencies. The Secretary of Defense may also utilize additional regular Armed Forces personnel as needed and must consult with the Attorney General and Homeland Security Secretary before withdrawing personnel. This action is taken under the President’s constitutional authority.
Read More
During his second term’s first 100 days, President Trump displayed a disregard for established legal principles. He expressed reservations about the notion of a government ruled by law, asserting that individuals, specifically “honest men” like himself, play a crucial role in administering it. Simultaneously, his administration actively pursued policies, including reinterpreting wartime powers for mass deportations and defying court orders, that prioritized his agenda over established legal processes. These actions, coupled with his comments on potentially circumventing legal limitations for a third term, reveal a pattern of prioritizing executive will over the rule of law.
Read More
A dozen states filed a lawsuit against President Trump in the U.S. Court of International Trade, arguing his tariffs are illegal and exceed presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The suit contends that the president’s imposition of tariffs constitutes an unconstitutional exercise of the power to tax, a right reserved for Congress. The states seek a court order declaring the tariffs void and preventing their enforcement, echoing a similar, earlier lawsuit filed by small businesses. This action follows a recent denial of a temporary restraining order on the tariffs by the same court.
Read More
California’s lawsuit against Donald Trump’s tariffs marks a significant legal challenge, alleging their unconstitutionality. This action, explained by Lawrence O’Donnell, stems from a belief that Trump’s actions exceeded his presidential authority. The suit represents the first state-level attempt to halt the tariffs, highlighting a constitutional conflict. O’Donnell contrasts this with his assessment of Nixon, arguing that despite Nixon’s criminality, he exhibited greater constitutional respect than Trump.
Read More
In response to President Trump’s new tariffs, a House Republican plans to introduce legislation limiting the White House’s ability to impose tariffs without Congressional approval. This bill, mirroring a bipartisan Senate proposal, would require the President to inform Congress within 48 hours of any new tariff, providing reasoning and impact analysis. Congress would then have 60 days to approve the tariff or it would expire. While facing challenges in the House, the bill has garnered initial support and could gain momentum depending on the economic impact of the new tariffs. The legislation underscores the constitutional debate over Congress’s authority on tariffs and taxes.
Read More
Trump’s recent claim that President Biden’s pardons are “void” due to the use of an autopen is, frankly, bizarre. It’s a statement that raises more questions than it answers, and highlights the increasingly surreal nature of our current political climate. The sheer audacity of declaring another president’s official actions null and void based on the method of signing is unprecedented.
This assertion seems particularly ironic considering past claims about documents being declassified merely through mental intent. If a president can, in their mind, render something classified or unclassified, why would the use of an autopen, a technology designed to increase efficiency, suddenly invalidate a pardon?… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood