There were many reasons raised as to why Trump’s unliteral imposition of tariffs violated the law and the Constitution. A three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade, including judges appointed by Reagan and Trump, held that every single argument raised precluded Trump from imposing tariffs, as I argued here last April.

The US Court of International Trade just issued a unanimous ruling in the case against Trump’s “liberation day” tariffs filed by Liberty Justice Center and myself on behalf of five US businesses harmed by the tariffs. The ruling also covers the case filed by twelve states led by Oregon; they, too, have prevailed on all counts. All of Trump’s tariffs adopted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977  (IEEPA) are invalidated as beyond the scope of executive power, and their implementation blocked by a permanent injunction. In addition to striking down the “Liberation Day” tariffs challenged in our case (what the opinion refers to as the “Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs”), the  court also ruled against the fentanyl-related tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China (which were challenged in the Oregon case; the court calls them the “Trafficking Tariffs”).

Continue reading →

It’s not as bad a feeling in your gut as when a Supreme Court opinion begins with “Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court,” but it’s damn close when there’s a dissent by “JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins.” And he’s right, as is the case in L.M. v. Town of Middleborough.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari, leaving the First Circuit’s decision intact. The facts of the case are undisputed, and it raises a basic First Amendment free speech issue for a public school student that should have been easily resolved by application of the seminal Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, holding that “public school officials may not restrict a student’s freedom of speech unless his behavior ‘materially disrupts classwork
or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.’” Continue reading →

A comment yesterday from abwman gave me pause.

Scott, I don’t know you other than through this blog, but I’m worried about some of your recent missives. Over the years I’ve read your views as concerns about misguided efforts of political and social extremists (on both sides of the spectrum) to break the mold of American liberalism.

My sense has always been that this was founded in a fundamental optimism that a less extreme majority could reason their way to social and economic improvements that don’t undermine the principles that have allowed the U.S. to make course corrections over time that, on balance, enhance the lives of the vast majority of folks. Your recent posts have dark overtones that seem imbued with a more pessimistic view of where we stand now, and what lies in the future. Continue reading →

It’s still early as I write this, and perhaps the New York Times will post a headline or editorial about today being Memorial Day later today. But as I write this, there is nothing. The closest it comes is an op-ed by Drew Faust, former president of Harvard, quoting Frederick Douglass from May 30, 1871, asking “What shall men remember?”

For reasons I’ve expressed in the past and need not say again, I remember the men and women who gave their lives for their country. But when my generation is gone, will there be anyone left to remember? Will there be any left to care whether anyone remembers? Continue reading →

Five years ago today, George Floyd died. Contrary to many who knew little about issues of police racism, abuse and violence, and criminal law reform, this one death gave rise to a movement that seized the nation as if there were no serious, meaningful, intelligent efforts to make change. Instead, the mantra of Black Lives Matter appeared ubiquitous and progressives in government began reinventing our socio-economic-legal processes around the “marginalized” at the willing expense of the “privileged.” Continue reading →

Have I mentioned I hate omnibus bills? Oh yeah, I did when Biden did it and now I’m doing it again when Trump does it, because nobody knows what’s buried in its bowels. Like this:

No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.

Did anybody mention that the House Republicans snuck this gem into their Big Beautiful Bill? Well yes, Chicago Prawf Sam Bray mentioned it, and explained what’s wrong with it as well. Continue reading →

Don’t laugh. I might have run into trouble with the cops recently. It’s nothing to be excited about, mind you, and as soon as my mean-ass editor helps me get all of this sorted with the authorities I’ll be in the clear.

Oh, get your minds out of the gutter.

It all started innocently enough. My doctor, a rather tall ginger with a mustache screaming “I own a snowblower,” informs me it’s time to check the ol’ plumbing. “You’re not getting any younger, Chris,” he said, handing me a prep kit apparently designed by sadists at a laxative convention. The instructions? Take three Dulcolax and wash them down with a gallon of what looks and tastes like Satan’s Gatorade and spend the next twelve hours regretting every life decision that led you to this moment while hugging your toilet like the porcelain throne it is. Continue reading →

Not only was the question bound to arise from Trump’s “firing” of board members of agencies created by Congress to be independent, such that they could putatively perform their function based upon impartiality and expertise rather than political partisanship, but it was bound to be decided. Humphrey’s Executor was on the table and everybody knew it.

What everybody did not know, and did not expect, was that the Supreme Court would effectively overrule a 90-year-old precedent on the shadow docket. Yet, that’s what it did in a 6-3 two-page per curiam decision in Trump v. Wilcox. Continue reading →

It’s been clear for a while now that the Trump administration ignored Judge Boasberg’s order, violated Judge Xinis’ order and even ignored the Supreme Court’s decision in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, which may have been unclear with the meaning of the word “effectuate,” but held that “facilitate” was more than clear.

The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.

Seen Abrego Garcia around lately? Heard about the government’s efforts to “facilitate” his return? That’s because the government didn’t facilitate. The government did nothing to comply with Judge Xinis’ order, even though the Supreme Court held it must. And what did the courts do about it? In fact, it’s largely disappeared from the news, something else to be forgotten in the daily hourly fog of Trumpianism. Continue reading →

The debate has largely centered around a fellow named Kilmar Abrego Garcia, largely because his case has captured the headlines and the docket. In continuing violation of Judge Paula Xinis’ order, the government has yet to lift a finger to “facilitate” the return of an alien they renditioned by admitted mistake. The case made a good vehicle for the challenge given an immigration judge’s order that he not be deported to El Salvador was ignored and he was sent there to spend the rest of his life in prison.

Of course, President Trump wasn’t concerned since, in his twisted mind, Abrego Garcia had “MS-13” tattooed to his knuckles, proving the righteousness, if not lawfulness, of the rendition. But as for the rest, the argument has largely taken for granted that the renditioned Venezuelans were, indeed, Tren de Aragua (or MS-13?) gangbangers, and really, who cares whether they were lawfully deported to a Salvadoran torture prison? Continue reading →