In a solo dissent in Learning Resources v. Trump, Justice Clarence Thomas advanced a controversial legal theory that would allow Congress to surrender core constitutional powers to the President with few limits, drawing sharp criticism from legal scholars.
Fox Business host Larry Kudlow argued that recent U.S.-led strikes against Iran should be seen as concluding a decades-long conflict, not starting a new one, as lawmakers prepare to debate war powers authority.
The Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 that a Cold War-era emergency law does not grant the President unilateral authority to impose sweeping tariffs. In a fiery dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas accused the majority of misreading both statute and constitutional history, citing Nixon-era precedents.
A bipartisan effort to compel President Trump to seek congressional authorization for further military action against Iran has gained new urgency following a major joint operation over the weekend, reigniting a constitutional debate over war-making authority.
A bipartisan push is underway to force a congressional vote on military authority, as Democrats and some Republicans challenge the legal basis for the recent joint U.S.-Israel strikes on Tehran, reigniting a decades-old debate over presidential war powers.
The Supreme Court's landmark ruling curbed the use of emergency powers for tariffs, reinforcing constitutional checks. However, the administration pivots to other legal avenues, ensuring the trade conflict—and its costs for American households—persists.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that former President Donald Trump overstepped his authority by imposing sweeping tariffs under emergency powers, a decision that invalidates a core part of his trade agenda and reshapes the legal landscape for future trade actions.
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down the Trump administration's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs, siding with Texas companies that led the legal challenge. The decision is expected to lower costs for businesses and consumers, though experts warn the trade policy battle may not be over.
A fierce debate over presidential authority and the constitutional definition of war has engulfed Capitol Hill following U.S. strikes on Iran, with a Senate vote revealing deep partisan divides over military engagement.
As the U.S. military buildup near Iran continues, a bipartisan war powers resolution faces delays in Congress. Reports suggest some Democratic leaders are hesitant to force a vote, calculating that a conflict could politically damage the Trump administration, even as public opposition to war remains strong.
Senator John Curtis (R-UT) declares he will withhold support for funding future Middle East military operations unless Congress formally declares war, reigniting debate over executive power and the War Powers Resolution.
President Trump's decision to authorize military action against Iran without prior congressional approval has reignited a decades-old debate over war powers. Legal experts point to a long line of precedents set by administrations of both parties, while lawmakers draft resolutions to reassert Congressional authority.
Amid a significant U.S. military buildup in the Middle East, President Trump's consideration of strikes on Iran to force a nuclear deal sparks a fierce constitutional debate over war powers and presidential authority.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has launched a scathing critique of the recent U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran, questioning their constitutionality and predicting a strategic failure. He announced plans for a War Powers Resolution vote to challenge President Trump's unilateral military action.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, facing a bipartisan push to reassert congressional authority over military action against Iran, publicly voiced uncertainty about securing enough votes to block the resolution, stating he was 'praying' for its defeat.
The traditional safe-haven status of major consumer packaged goods companies is being eroded by a confluence of lasting headwinds, from demographic shifts to power struggles in the value chain, forcing a stark divergence in stock performance.
Australia's swift legislative response to the Bondi attack is drawing criticism from rights groups, who warn the broad new powers risk criminalizing peaceful pro-Palestinian advocacy and disproportionately targeting Muslim communities, raising profound questions about the future of protest and free speech.
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has restricted the use of emergency powers for imposing tariffs, compelling the Trump administration to rely on other legal statutes to advance its trade agenda, with minimal immediate impact on markets or consumer prices.
The Supreme Court's ruling against tariffs imposed under emergency powers has been hailed by retailers and importers as a victory for predictability, while manufacturers and China hawks warn of economic and security risks. The decision now triggers a complex battle over billions in potential refunds.
In a landmark 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated a core set of global tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump, finding he overstepped his authority by using emergency powers for trade policy. While the decision curbs one tool, numerous other tariffs remain firmly in place.
