It happened again this week — with an exclamation point — when two federal courts invalidated the central plank of Trump’s economic agenda: a slate of emergency tariffs that spurred uncertainty across the globe.
Both courts found that Trump severely exceeded his authority when he invoked a 1977 law as the legal basis for the tariffs.
In the words of one judge, Trump broke with “five decades” of practice by presidents who never claimed the power that Trump says IEEPA gives him.
The roster of these purported wayward jurists includes judges appointed by every president since Ronald Reagan, including by Trump himself.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C. swept aside a challenge to this effort on procedural grounds.
It’s a recurring pattern: Donald Trump revisits an old law, reinterprets it, and tries to use it in previously unheard-of, extensive ways. The courts clamp down, declaring that the president’s imaginative reimagining is simply unlawful.
With an exclamation point, it happened once more this week when two federal courts declared that Trump’s economic agenda’s main tenet—a set of emergency tariffs that caused uncertainty worldwide—was unconstitutional.
Trump’s use of a 1977 law as the legal foundation for the tariffs was deemed by both courts to be a significant abuse of power. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president the authority to impose tariffs in an emergency, but only under specific conditions and for specific objectives. Trump broke with “five decades” of presidents who never asserted the authority that Trump claims IEEPA grants him, according to one judge.
While the administration files an appeal, both court decisions are currently on hold. However, they also highlight a more general tactic Trump has employed to quickly implement his second-term agenda: he repurposes outdated or obscure laws, particularly those that grant presidents special authority in times of war or other national emergencies.
Outside of tariffs, he has attempted to kneecap public-employee labor unions and intensify his deportation program using the same strategy.
One issue for Trump, however, is that courts are becoming less convinced of his claims of national security exigencies or purported emergencies as grounds for using these rarely invoked statutes.
The White House consistently labels courts that rule against the administration as activist or politically motivated, insisting that judges, not the president, are to blame for the misbehavior. Judges appointed by all presidents since Ronald Reagan, including Trump, are on the list of these alleged errant jurists.
“Unelected judges are increasingly interfering in presidential decision-making, which is concerning and dangerous,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated at a press briefing on Thursday.
Others point out that the administration is depending on laws that previous presidents have used, albeit in more restricted ways that were upheld by the courts.
Deportations during a war in the 18th century.
Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act is his most audacious attempt to take advantage of an outdated law for his own ends. That law was passed by the founding generation in an effort to thwart “invasions” or “predatory incursions” by competing governments. A conflict with France was imminent at the time. And for over two centuries, presidents only used the law three times: against British subjects during the War of 1812, against German immigrants during World War I, and against Japanese, German, Italian, and other nationals during World War II.
Then, in March, Trump attempted to use it to deport suspected members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua with little to no due process. The framers’ conceptions of “predatory incursion” and “invasion” were immediately put to the test by the tactic. The judiciary took notice.
“The AEA contains no evidence to support a conclusion that TdA gangsters who infiltrate the migrants or refugees fleeing Venezuela are participating in an ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion,'” U.S. S. . Earlier this month, district judge Alvin Hellerstein made a decision. They don’t want to ravage land, occupy it, or remove American authority from any area. “”.
Judges in Colorado and Texas stated that Trump’s reinterpretation of the old law went beyond his legal authority, and Hellerstein’s decision was consistent with those rulings.
However, one judge took Trump’s side on that crucial issue: U. S. . “While the’meaning’ of a statute is fixed at its enactment, new ‘applications’ may arise in light of changes in the world,” concluded District Judge Stephanie Haines, a Trump appointee from Pennsylvania…. Trump has labeled TdA a foreign terrorist organization, which she said the founders may have believed was capable of carrying out a “predatory incursion.”. “”.
restoring the need for immigrants to register.
Trump has repealed an 85-year-old law that required all immigrants, regardless of their legal status, to register with the federal government if they were in the country for more than 30 days as part of his efforts to track down undocumented immigrants and make their presence illegal. The Alien Registration Act was enacted just prior to the U.S. S. started the Second World War. It was used to find foreigners who supported overthrowing the government and subsequently against suspected communists.
However, it was not used for decades until Trump gave the Department of Homeland Security an executive order to update its guidelines and begin implementing the registration requirement.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C. dismissed on procedural grounds a challenge to this effort. However, a Louisiana magistrate judge rejected the initial accusations made by the Trump administration under this law, stating that the prosecution had not proven the five defendants in question even knew they had to register. The requirement, which was last reiterated by Congress in the 1950s, “was essentially defunct and abandoned for the past 70 years,” the magistrate judge observed. “.”.
The ruling is being appealed to a district court judge by the Trump administration.
invalidating student visas.
Foreign-born pro-Palestinian academics at American universities are another group of immigrants that Secretary of State Marco Rubio targeted by invoking yet another obscure statutory provision. Rubio has taken advantage of this clause to strip a number of well-known professors and students of their legal status.
Adopted in 1990 as part of a revision to immigration laws, the provision allows the secretary of state to order the deportation of any immigrant if the secretary believes that the immigrant’s presence could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”. “”.
Since then, the clause has only been applied a few times, and almost always in situations involving grave accusations of terrorism or subversive activity in the targets’ home nations. The clause, however, has been used by Rubio to target college activists who took part in anti-Israel demonstrations. Rubio stated in his letter that although the actions of Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, Rumeysa Ozturk, and other students studying in the United States had been lawful, their continued presence and activities in the country “would compromise a compelling U.S. security interest.”. S. . interest in foreign policy. “.”.
According to federal judges who have considered the effort, Rubio’s application of the clause seems to violate the Constitution by penalizing international scholars and students for exercising their right to free speech.
Khalil is a recent graduate student at Columbia University who faces deportation. The judge overseeing his case went further this week, stating that Rubio’s use of the provision was based almost entirely on worries about individuals whose “relevant conduct took place entirely abroad.”. “”.
“The history of legislation and enforcement does not imply that removal could be pursued under these conditions,” U. S. . Written by District Judge Michael Farbiarz. Instead, they emphasize that such a removal is unprecedented. “.”.
removing collective bargaining through the use of “national security.”.
In an effort to deny most federal employees the ability to engage in collective bargaining, Trump has also dug up a seldom utilized authority in federal labor law. The president may deny unionization rights to federal agencies under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 if he finds that the agencies’ primary function is national security.
The Departments of Agriculture, Justice, Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs are among the numerous agencies and divisions that Trump named as having a national security focus. Approximately two-thirds of the federal workforce may lose their ability to engage in collective bargaining as a result of his directive.
U. A. Donald Trump’s move was blocked by District Judge Paul Friedman. Friedman wrote that the President’s definition of “national security” goes beyond what Congress intended.
However, while the administration appeals, a federal appeals court panel has halted Friedman’s decision.
