Free Republic

(The Center Square) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear a case over whether states can sue fossil fuel companies for damages related to climate change.The nation’s highest court agreed to hear arguments in Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. Justices on the court asked both parties to submit briefs on whether it has constitutional authority to decide the case.The case, based out of Colorado, challenges the authority of state and local governments to use nuisance laws in proceedings against fossil fuel companies.“There is no constitutional bar to states addressing in-state harms caused by...

Litigation brought by a key figure in the Russiagate scandal has quietly reached the Supreme Court, giving the nation’s nine justices a chance to weigh in on an investigation that has become a symbol of law-enforcement and intelligence abuses during the Obama-Biden era. Carter Page, an energy consultant who briefly served as a foreign policy adviser to President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, became the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation into possible Russian election interference known as Crossfire Hurricane. In 2020, Page filed a federal lawsuit seeking damages from then-FBI Director James Comey and other former officials, including former Deputy...

A 6-3 Supreme Court majority on Friday struck down President Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs (Learning Resources v. Trump) in a monumental vindication of the Constitution’s separation of powers. You might call it the real tariff Liberation Day. It’s hard to overstate the importance of the Court’s decision for the law and the economy. Had Mr. Trump prevailed, future Presidents could have used emergency powers to bypass Congress and impose border taxes with little constraint. As Chief Justice John Roberts explains in the majority opinion, “Recognizing the taxing power’s unique importance, and having just fought a revolution motivated in large part...

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case on Wednesday over whether tax foreclosure sales are constitutional. Pung v. Isabella County [Michigan] involves the rights of a foreclosed upon homeowner to receive equity back when their home is sold over a tax foreclosure. The dispute comes between the Pung family and Isabella County, Michigan, over real estate taxes on a home the Pungs owned. A judge determined that the Pungs owed about $2,200 in taxes and allowed the government to auction off their home for $76,000. An individual purchased the Pungs' home from the government and later sold it for...

Trump’s response to the Supreme Court tariff ruling points beyond China to “foreign interests” tied to the British Empire's Adam Smith free-trade ideology, defended by the US Chamber of Commerce and Cato Institute. She cites Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Ambassador Jamieson Greer framing the administration’s approach as Hamiltonian economic sovereignty, and says tariffs will continue under other laws, including a new 10% global tariff. She contrasts this with Thursday’s Board of Peace meeting, where 60 nations backed “peace through construction,” funding housing, security, and development, rejecting Kissinger-style managed conflict. She warns midterm demoralization risks ending Trump’s agenda. RT 14...

As was true for many conservatives, when I saw the headline saying that the Supreme Court had reversed Trump’s tariffs, I admit that my stomach sank. My first thought was that this was an epic disaster for the Trump administration. More than that, I thought that this is an epic disaster for the strong Trump economy, because tariffs have been a major leg of that stool.AdvertisementThen I took a deep breath and had a couple of useful thoughts. My first thought was, I bet Trump has a backup plan, because he’s always known that this could happen. He’s not the...

President Trump said on Saturday that he is going to raise his global tariff to 15%, up from 10% he imposed on Friday, after the Supreme Court struck down a set of sweeping global tariffs.

Victor Schwartz, 67, became the face of the battle to strike down the president's controversial tariffs when he sued the government last April. Schwartz has owned VOS Selections in Manhattan since 1987 and feared the tariffs would devastate his small business. He argued that the US President lacked the authority to impose tariffs without congressional approval, becoming one of the few dissenting corporate voices to publicly oppose the fees

Four election integrity groups filed an amicus brief in support of a case that requests the U.S. Supreme Court not allow state laws that permit counting ballots arriving after Election Day, with experts saying that the recent normalization of late ballots negatively affects trust in and efficiency of elections. Executive Director of Honest Elections Project Jason Snead told The Center Square that “this case is nothing more than a return to the norm and an enforcement of federal law against a novel scheme that illegally extends elections beyond Election Day.” Late arriving ballots “[erode] confidence in the outcome,” and “mean...

https://x.com/JoeLang51440671/status/2024919966634361197 JoeLange@JoeLang51440671·1hI keep telling people that everything has changed and nothing can stop what’s coming.The Supreme Court just “helped” Trump and most people can’t see it.They struck down tariffs based on the IEEPA law, that has been abused by past presidents, especially Obama, as I just laid out in a two part thread.That law is so broad, that it actually endangers America, when used by a corrupt president like Obama.And this ruling did nothing to stop Trump from imposing tariffs.Trump immediately declared that he would restore the tariffs struck down because of the IEEPA law.How?NATIONAL SECURITY.And here’s what most people...

The Supreme Court’s tariff decision landed about where conventional wisdom said it would: The justices ruled 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act simply doesn’t give the president the sweeping authority the Trump administration claimed. That’s not a political rebuke. It’s a legal one, and a narrow one at that. Chief Justice John Roberts put the bottom line plainly: “We hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” That’s it. Not that tariffs are unconstitutional. Not that Trump’s trade agenda is illegitimate. Just that this particular statute doesn’t do the work the administration wanted it to...

It isn't over until it's over, or the Fat Lady Sings. Tariffs, are not done. Here is Scott Bessent also speaking on the supject today: Scott Bessent Supposedly, Kavanugh's dissent included the roadmap for what Trump should use, that his use of that Emergency Act he ued was the wrong one to use, and pointed to the correct one. Here's the best I cvan find for that aspect of the riuling: Kavanaugh in dissent: Bad policy or not, Trump's tariffs were 'clearly lawful'

President Donald Trump on Friday escalated his criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court following its decision to strike down most of his sweeping global tariffs, suggesting that “foreign interests” may have influenced the justices who ruled against him. The comments came just hours after the high court, in a 6–3 ruling, determined that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing broad import duties under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that the statute does not grant a president the power to levy tariffs, a responsibility the Constitution assigns to Congress. During...

Few things in Washington, D.C., generate as much as excitement and intrigue as a Supreme Court confirmation showdown. For decades, since the eponymous "borking" of then-Supreme Court nominee Bob Bork in 1987, political battles surrounding the membership of the nation's high court have been among the most contentious and raucous of Beltway affairs. Which is why it's rather curious that very few outside the most fervid of court-watchers seem to be discussing the distinct possibility that there could be one or two Supreme Court vacancies after the current term ends this summer. Justice Samuel Alito is 75 years old --...

BREAKING: SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas dropped straight TRUTH BOMBS in his dissent on the tariffs He nailed it. "NEITHER the statutory text nor the Constitution provide a basis for ruling against the President." "Congress authorized the President to “regulate . . . importation.” Throughout American history, the authority to “regulate importation” has been understood to include the authority to impose duties on imports." "The meaning of that phrase was beyond doubt by the time that Congress enacted this statute, shortly after President Nixon’s highly publicized duties on imports were UPHELD based on identical language." "The statute that the President relied...

The Trump Administration will take the following actions in short order to ensure continuity in reaching these goals and as part of our negotiated agreements with numerous trading partners: Immediately impose a temporary 10 percent surcharge on articles imported into the United States, pursuant to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Initiate several investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301”) to deal with unjustifiable, unreasonable, discriminatory, and burdensome acts, policies, and practices by many trading partners. We expect these investigations to cover most major trading partners and to address areas of concern such...

President Donald Trump said Friday he will sign an executive order imposing a new 10% “global tariff,” hours after the Supreme Court struck down his sweeping “reciprocal” import duties in a major rebuke of his trade agenda. The new tariffs will come on top of the existing levies that remain intact following the high court’s decision, Trump said as he raged at the ruling during a White House press briefing.

Trump Tariffs Achieve What Economists Said Was ImpossibleThe Wall Street Journal’s headline on Thursday’s trade data declared that “America Imported a Record Amount Last Year Despite Seismic Trade Policy Changes,” emphasizing that the annual deficit “was little changed” and concluding that the tariffs “did little to dissuade Americans from importing.” Bloomberg declared: “US Notches One of Its Biggest Annual Trade Gaps Since 1960.”Sounds scary enough to make some doubt that President Trump’s tariffs were having any effect at all. Maybe all those anti-tariff pundits were right and tariffs could not rebalance trade. That, of course, is precisely the reaction the...

The U.S. trade deficit has fallen by nearly half since President Trump’s Liberation Day tariff announcements in March, with the December gap coming in 48 percent smaller than the March peak.The combined goods and services deficit dropped to $70.3 billion in December from $136.0 billion in March, a decline of $65.7 billion, according to Commerce Department data released Thursday. The goods deficit alone fell 39 percent, from $162.1 billion to $99.3 billion.The dramatic nine-month improvement suggests Trump’s tariff strategy is achieving its core objective of reducing America’s trade imbalance. March represented the peak of the deficit as importers rushed to...

President Trump kicked off a campaign rally in Georgia with a fiery defense of his tariff policy, arguing he has the “right,” as president, to set them. The Supreme Court could rule as soon as Friday on the legality of Trump’s tariff agenda. “I have to wait for this decision. I’ve been waiting forever, forever, and the language is clear that I have the right to do it as President, I have the right to put tariffs on for national security,” Trump said. He argued the tariffs against countries like China and Canada were targeting nations that have “ripped us...