Emergency powers like IEEPA give presidents vast powers that are highly vulnerable to abuse. The courts play a vital role in ensuring that presidents don’t stretch these powers beyond what Congress intended. The Supreme Court played that role today. 18/18
Trump says he will now impose tariffs under actual tariff authorities. These do give him significant leeway—just not the blank check he claimed IEEPA provided. But regardless of the ultimate outcome, there is much in this ruling to celebrate. 17/18
The notion that longstanding trade relationships with every other nation pose an “unusual and extraordinary” threat is specious. Fortunately, only three justices took this position. And even these pro-executive power justices did not find the issue judicially unreviewable. 16/18
Kavanaugh’s dissent (joined by Thomas and Alito) briefly endorses the approach of a dissenting judge in the federal circuit, who held that the question was reviewable — albeit on a highly deferential standard — and that the criterion had been met. 15/18
The justices in the majority had no need to reach the question. But to conclude that the tariffs were lawful, it was incumbent on the dissenters to determine either that such a threat existed or that the question was not subject to judicial review. 14/18
Another critical aspect of today’s ruling: not a single justice embraced the government’s argument that courts lack the power to review whether IEEPA’s criterion of an “unusual and extraordinary” foreign threat has been satisfied. 13/18
As for laws that touch on foreign affairs, Roberts reasoned that a broader reading of such laws would make sense, if at all, only in situations where the president has some independent constitutional authority — which is not the case with tariffs. 12/18
In the same vein, Gorsuch’s concurrence emphasized how difficult it would be for Congress to reclaim emergency powers if courts allowed presidents to read them too broadly. As he put it, “retrieving a lost power is no easy business in our constitutional order.” 11/18
Indeed, Roberts suggested that courts should be *particularly* wary of overbroad readings of emergency powers. Quoting Youngstown (a seminal separation-of-powers case), he noted that “‘Emergency powers,’ after all, ‘tend to kindle emergencies.’” 10/18
In my view, Roberts’ repudiation of the broad view of the president’s emergency and foreign affairs powers advanced by the government/dissent is the most important and consequential aspect of today’s ruling. It affirms that presidents may not play fast and loose with the law in these areas. 9/18
The government had argued that the MQD does not apply to emergency powers. Kavanaugh’s dissent, joined by Thomas and Alito, similarly argued that the MQD should not apply in cases that touch on foreign affairs. 8/18
Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson concurred in the holding, but did not endorse the major questions doctrine. Instead, they relied on ordinary tools of statutory interpretation. Justice Jackson in particular focused on the law’s legislative history. 7/18
That’s a favorite doctrine of conservatives on the Court. It holds that executive branch actions with major political or economic significance must be clearly authorized by Congress. In such cases, vague or ambiguous language will be construed against the executive. 6/18
Six justices held that IEEPA simply does not confer the power to impose tariffs, although they reached that conclusion for different reasons. Roberts, in an opinion that Gorsuch and Barrett joined in full, relied on the “major questions doctrine” (MQD). 5/18
IEEPA specifies a long list of economic actions the president can take. That list does not include the words “tariffs,” “duties,” or “taxes.” Trump nonetheless claimed the authority to impose worldwide tariffs, free from any of the constraints in actual tariff authorities. 4/18
Trump did not rely on any of these laws. Instead, he invoked IEEPA, a law that allows the president to impose certain economic measures when he declares a national emergency to address an “unusual and extraordinary” foreign threat. 3/18
The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to impose tariffs. Congress can authorize the president to impose tariffs, and has done so through an extensive network of laws that include various constraints and limitations. 2/18
By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court has held that Trump’s worldwide tariffs exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The decision is a victory for the rule of law and the separation of powers. 1/18 www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to it. Spying on members of Congress is antithetical to the Constitution’s separation of powers. Members of both parties should stand up for the institution they serve and demand accountability. 10/10
There’s a pattern here. Whether it’s blocking members’ visits to immigration detention sites or abusing emergency powers to usurp Congress’s power to impose tariffs, contempt for the constitutional role of Congress has become a standard feature of this administration. 9/10
In one respect, DOJ’s actions are arguably even more outrageous. The CIA at least had a claimed reason for its spying. To date, DOJ has given no justification for its actions. There is no allegation, nor could there be, that members of Congress crossed any lines by searching the Epstein files. 8/10
The incident rightly provoked outrage. The CIA’s inspector general reviewed the agency’s actions and found that CIA personnel had acted inappropriately. The CIA director apologized to the chair and ranking member of the committee. 7/10 www.npr.org/sections/the...
As I wrote at the time, “The Constitution vests Congress with the authority to oversee the activities of the executive branch. Covertly spying on the committee’s investigative activities constitutes gross interference with a core congressional function.” 6/10 www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...
The CIA tried to justify its actions by claiming that committee staffers had broken the law by accessing documents the CIA had withheld (documents highly damning to the CIA). But the CIA’s inspector general found no valid support for this allegation. 5/10
Like DOJ, the CIA had refused to release the relevant documents to Congress. Instead, staffers had to review the records at CIA locations and on CIA computers. They were told that the CIA would access the network for technical purposes only. The CIA violated that promise. 4/10
The incident carries echoes of a previous scandal. In 2014, it emerged that the CIA had spied on Senate intelligence committee staffers who were reviewing CIA records as part of the committee’s investigation into the agency’s post-9/11 torture program. 3/10
To access the unredacted files, members were required to come to DOJ and use DOJ computers. They were reportedly told that DOJ would “keep a log of the dates and times of all members’ reviews”—not that DOJ would log the searches they performed. 2/10 www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...
Yesterday we learned that the Department of Justice is monitoring and tracking members of Congress’s searches of the Epstein files. There’s no sugar coating it: the administration is spying on lawmakers as they exercise their constitutional oversight responsibilities. 1/10
My colleague @hannahajames.bsky.social has an important post in today's @justsecurity.org debunking DHS's claim that it has legal authority to enter homes without warrants.
The Insurrection Act was never intended to address, let alone enable, chaos of the federal government’s own making. Governor Walz’s attempt to keep the peace in Minneapolis does not provide an opening for President Trump to fan the flames of official violence. 20/20
