Latest news with #checksandbalances
New York Times
30-05-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Trump's Tariffs and the Courts
Just how much power does the president have? That was the question in front of the federal courts that ruled against President Trump's tariffs in the last couple days. The judges weren't deciding whether the tariffs are good for the country but whether the president has the power to impose them all by himself. Maybe that sounds like a technical question. It's not. It's not an exaggeration to say that this question defines America. The framers rebelled against Britain because they felt that the king had too much power and that they didn't have enough say in the politics that shaped their lives. They wrote the Constitution to avoid crowning another monarch. Through that lens, a little-known trade court in New York blocked most of Trump's tariffs, including those that remained from 'Liberation Day.' Yesterday, an appeals court agreed to preserve the tariffs while it considers the case. The markets rose — cautiously — on the news. America's trading partners also reacted skeptically because the rulings could lead to more chaos as legal battles play out. Today, I want to focus on the question that the courts face. Checks and balances At face value, the Constitution seems clear on this topic. It says Congress, not the president, has the power to 'lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.' And tariffs are taxes. But Congress can delegate some powers to the president. It has passed several laws that allow the president to levy tariffs in case of emergency — say, if another country undermines a U.S. industry that's important to national security. Trump used one of these laws, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to impose his 'reciprocal' tariffs on other countries. (Madeleine Ngo, who covers economic policy, explained the law.) Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Fox News
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
'Activist' judges keep trying to curb Trump's agenda – here's how he could push back
President Donald Trump and his allies have railed against federal judges for blocking key executive orders in his second term, accusing so-called "activist" judges of overstepping their authority and blocking him from delivering on some of his top policy priorities. Some of Trump's most sweeping executive orders and actions have been blocked or paused by federal courts to allow for a full hearing on the merits. But the system of checks and balances also means these rulings can be reviewed – either through appeals to the Supreme Court or by Congress, which has the power to pass laws or expand certain executive branch authorities. It's all part of an expressly designed system of government that affords each branch, including the presidency, plenty of options for review. The Framers "made clear that no one in our system of government was meant to be king– the president included – and not just in name only," U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell of the District of Columbia said in a ruling earlier this year. But that's not to say Trump is without options. Here's how he could seek to push back against the wave of court actions. Since taking office, Trump's executive orders have been challenged by hundreds of lawsuits in federal court, though not all have been successful, and some remain in the earlier stages of review. Plaintiffs have sought to block the dismantling of certain federal agencies, to restore board heads and inspectors general fired by Trump, and to restrict the access of Elon Musk's government efficiency agency, DOGE, among other things. But like the groups filing the lawsuits, the Trump administration also has the ability to appeal any lower court decisions it views as unfavorable or going beyond the scope of the federal court. In the interim, it can seek an emergency stay to restore the executive order until the case can be heard on its merits. The Supreme Court has agreed to do so in several major cases. It sided with Trump in removing two federal board members he had fired earlier this year, and which a lower court had reversed. Last week, the Supreme Court lifted a lower court order that paused Trump's ban on transgender military members from taking effect – allowing his order and related policies to proceed, at least for now. The Trump administration can seek more lasting change by working with the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress to codify its biggest policy priorities, shielding the level of review currently afforded to the courts in the absence of any legislation. According to the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register, a president's executive order can be revoked or modified only by the president or via the legislative branch, if the president was acting on authority that had been granted by Congress. Plaintiffs in federal court have alleged that Trump's recent executive actions are beyond the scope of what has been authorized by Congress – and, in the absence of clearly written laws, federal judges do have broad authority to interpret the lawfulness of the executive's actions. Critics of the courts have pushed for Congress to curtail this power – either by stripping the funding for federal courts, impeaching judges or eliminating judicial seats, among other things. "When federal judges take off their judicial robes and climb into the political arena and throw political punches, they should expect powerful political counterpunches from the Article III project," Mike Davis, the founder and president of the Article III Project, or A3P, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "And when the federal judiciary loses its legitimacy, it loses everything," Davis said. But these steps are highly controversial, and it's unclear if they could garner the broad support needed from both the House and Senate. Options available to the White House are more limited by the Constitution. The president can appoint federal judges, but he cannot fire them. The executive branch is also responsible for enforcing court rulings and may either slow-roll or de-prioritize decisions the president disagrees with. Meanwhile, Trump allies have also sought to push back on the power of the courts in other, more unorthodox ways. The America First Legal Foundation, a pro-Trump legal group founded by White House aide Stephen Miller in between Trump's first and second terms, filed a lawsuit against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, in his capacity as the official head of the U.S. Judicial Conference, and Robert J. Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, earlier this month. The lawsuit accuses both parties of performing certain regulatory actions that go beyond the scope of the "core functions" of the judiciary – and which they argue should put them under the thumb of the executive branch. "An American president is not a king – not even an 'elected' one – and his power to remove federal officers and honest civil servants like plaintiff is not absolute," Howell said in a case involving the reinstatement of two fired federal board members earlier this year.
Washington Post
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Disillusioned by politics, I read these books to get out of my slump
For the first six weeks after Jan. 20, I didn't read a book. I moped instead. My mind couldn't settle when every morning brought a new shock and a growing recognition that the current occupant of the White House — I can't bring myself to say president — was undermining the chief safeguards of American democracy, starting with the Constitution's system of checks and balances. What troubled me even more, however, was why so many of our legislators were willing to support and defend such subversion. Did they really not care about anything but being reelected? Yet, to quote a book they often invoke if too seldom take to heart, 'What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?'
Washington Post
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Chief justice touts judicial independence, rejects impeaching judges
BUFFALO — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Wednesday championed the independence and authority of the nation's judicial system to serve as a check on Congress and the president at a time when federal courts are being attacked by the Trump administration. The three-branch, co-equal system of government 'doesn't work if the judiciary is not independent,' Roberts said during a wide-ranging, lively interview. The job of judges, he added, 'is obviously to decide cases, but — in the course of that — check the excesses of Congress or the executive, and that does require a degree of independence.'
