Litigation

On May 28, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled Trump's tariffs exceed IEEPA's scope; the court's analysis is weak. These cases show limits of constitutional avoidance.

Costs for scientific progress and the public could be profound if the Trump administration succeeds in significantly cutting research funding.

For the first time in modern history, children born on American soil may be rendered stateless. The risk to non-citizen children is real and urgent.

CASA’s reasoning left open multiple avenues for litigants seeking to obtain broad relief against unlawful executive actions

After Trump v. CASA, the APA offers a path to nationwide relief against unconstitutional executive actions—without relying on universal injunctions.

Tracking the use of State power requires systematically identifying linkages between individual developments and broader trends. This graphic offers one method.

Ideology affects U.S. terrorism prosecutions: ISIS-linked defendants tend to get longer sentences than those tied to other extremist groups or ideologies.

Mexico's claims were denied on jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court provided a roadmap to other scenarios in which such claims might advance.

While Mexico’s claims were set aside, the Court laid out new pathways to accountability, providing a clearer roadmap of which legal strategies are likelier to succeed.

Consolidating cases allows a clear, expedited path to Supreme Court review, helping quickly address matters involving executive orders.

A recent U.S. Court of International Trade ruling may distract more than it changes the course of U.S. President Trump's trade policy.

A recent court decision has made clear that reorganizing the federal government can't proceed through backdoor executive planning.