The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) is challenging the Trump administration’s tariffs on Chinese imports, arguing that their imposition via the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) constitutes an unconstitutional overreach of executive power. The lawsuit claims that the IEEPA, intended for swift responses to international economic crises, does not grant the president authority to unilaterally levy tariffs, a power reserved for Congress. The NCLA asserts that the tariffs are not only unauthorized but also lack a demonstrable connection to the declared national emergency, specifically citing the discrepancy between the stated opioid crisis and the broad-based tariff implementation. The group seeks a court order declaring the tariffs unlawful and halting their enforcement.
Read More
Judge Theodore Chuang ruled Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) dismantling of USAID likely violated the Constitution’s separation of powers clause. The court found DOGE’s actions, including the near-complete elimination of USAID’s workforce, contravened Congress’s authority. While the judge declined to reinstate terminated employees due to USAID’s apparent complicity, he prohibited further terminations, record destruction, and unauthorized actions regarding USAID. The order also mandates the restoration of employee access to electronic systems and the potential reoccupation of USAID headquarters.
Read More
A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from further actions against the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The ruling, stemming from a lawsuit filed by fired USAID employees, finds Musk’s actions likely violated the Constitution’s appointments clause and separation of powers. The judge determined Musk, despite lacking formal authority, effectively functioned as DOGE’s administrator, wielding unprecedented power to dismantle agencies. The Trump administration, which vehemently denies the ruling, has vowed to appeal.
Read More
Judge Theodore Chuang ruled Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) dismantling of USAID was likely unconstitutional, violating the separation of powers by contravening congressional authority. The order prevents further terminations, record destruction, and unauthorized actions regarding USAID, mandating the restoration of employee access to systems and potential headquarters reoccupation. While some plaintiff requests were denied due to USAID’s apparent complicity, the judge found DOGE’s actions harmed the public interest by undermining Congress’s authority. Musk responded by sharing a critical post, suggesting the ruling was politically motivated.
Read More
A potential executive branch power grab, via the impoundment of funds, risks a Supreme Court showdown and severely undermines the constitutional balance of powers. This action, potentially driven by figures like Russell Vought who advocate a sweeping governmental reshaping, is currently stalled by Senate budget deadlock. The short-term consequences are significant, but long-term implications threaten a further concentration of presidential power.
Read More
A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration’s blanket freeze on nearly $2 billion in foreign aid was unconstitutional, ordering the funds’ release. The judge found the administration’s actions violated the separation of powers by impounding congressionally appropriated funds, contradicting established constitutional partnership between the executive and legislative branches. While acknowledging the government’s right to challenge future aid allocations, the court mandated the immediate disbursement of owed funds for existing contracts and grants. The ruling followed a temporary restraining order and subsequent appeals, highlighting the significant harm caused by the freeze to numerous organizations and their employees.
Read More
Judge Howell’s decision invalidated the President’s attempt to remove a National Labor Relations Board member, citing a clear violation of law. The ruling emphasizes that presidential authority is not absolute and rejects the notion of a president operating with kingly or dictatorial powers. Howell asserted that the Constitution explicitly prevents such unilateral actions by the executive branch. This dismissal of the President’s actions underscores the limitations on presidential power as defined by Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Read More
Trump’s announced intention to abolish the US Department of Education is a significant and controversial move, raising numerous questions about its legality and its potential impact. The very notion of a president unilaterally dismantling a government department established by Congress is inherently problematic, raising concerns about the separation of powers fundamental to the American system of government. The Department of Education, established through legislation, isn’t something subject to presidential whim; its existence and functions are defined by law passed by Congress, not executive order. This means Trump’s action would likely face immediate legal challenges, potentially resulting in a federal injunction halting the process.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to deny the Trump administration’s request to cancel nearly $2 billion in foreign aid represents a significant legal hurdle for the administration’s attempts to drastically alter federal spending. This ruling underscores the principle that Congress, not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse.
The core issue revolved around the administration’s effort to unilaterally withhold funds already allocated by Congress through existing contracts. Justice Alito, in a dissenting opinion joined by three other justices, expressed strong disagreement with the majority’s decision, questioning the authority of a single district court judge to compel the release of such a substantial sum.… Continue reading
The Pentagon chief’s recent decision to restore the name of Fort Benning has ignited a firestorm of controversy, highlighting a growing tension between the executive and legislative branches of government. This move, perceived by many as a blatant disregard for a Congressional provision, raises serious questions about the balance of power and the future of American democracy.
The core issue lies in the Pentagon chief’s apparent circumvention of a Congressional mandate. While the specifics of the Congressional provision aren’t explicitly detailed, the general understanding is that it aimed to prevent military bases from bearing the names of Confederate figures. By reinstating the name “Fort Benning,” the Pentagon chief seems to have found a loophole, possibly by renaming the base after a different individual with the same surname who wasn’t associated with the Confederacy.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood