Dragged through the Democrats’ endless lawfare campaign, Jim Troupis is asking the liberal-led state Supreme Court to consider due process.
Raked over the coals in a years-long leftist lawfare campaign, former state circuit court Judge Jim Troupis is asking the controlling liberals on the Wisconsin Supreme Court to do what it seems incapable of doing: Act fairly and impartially.
An all-you-can-eat buffet of free stuff and Trump sucks represented the ideological substance of California’s late-AWFL Khmer Rouge party.
The California Democratic Party held their annual convention over the weekend, and there was a lot to talk about. They didn’t talk about any of it, but there was a lot to talk about.
The State Department announced its intention to revoke the visas of five foreign individuals who have allegedly censored Americans.
As ICE sweeps in Minneapolis have drawn wide attention, a little-noticed immigration case playing out in a New York federal court has significant implications for America’s relationship with Britain and the ongoing debate over global censorship.
Fortune 500 companies are waking up and understanding what time it is. It’s time for businesses to get back to business.
For years, corporate America has fallen all over itself to be applauded by activists like the Human Rights Campaign, falsely believing HRC’s approval meant they were doing something right and good for business. This year, hundreds of companies, realizing they’ve been led astray, marched the other way.
Colorado legislators support requiring courts to consider whether parents embrace a child’s ‘gender identity’ in determining custody.
Colorado’s Democrat state legislators want to force transgenderism on parents, requiring them to affirm their child’s “gender identity” or risk losing custody.
New evidence shows that the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action is not a setback; instead, it facilitates improved outcomes for all.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), which banned affirmative action in college admissions, many experts, university officials, civil rights advocates, and government leaders warned about sharp declines in black and Hispanic enrollment. Yet a new report suggests that these predictions were overly pessimistic and failed to reflect the full scope of the situation.
Parents have been systematically turned away from the few venues they once had to steer Department of Defense Education Activity schools.
One of the few silver linings of the pandemic era was a parental awakening as they got a closer look at their children’s schoolwork. Booming attendance and barnburner speeches dotted school board meetings across the country. Parents started electing new members to focus on core subjects over social engineering. It was a newly informed citizenry in action. The school board system, though imperfect, is where parents and taxpayers can shape public education. Unfortunately, active-duty military families don’t have that option.
In a game for the ages, the U.S. men’s national hockey team defeated Canada in the 2026 Winter Olympics championship on Sunday. The victory came on the 46th anniversary of the famous 1980 Miracle on Ice, which was the last year the American men’s team won gold.
The CIA’s commitment to advancing leftist activism appears to span at least three presidential administrations beginning in 2015.
Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe ordered the retraction of 19 intelligence products following an independent review that found the documents failed to meet regulatory standards of tradecraft and quality, the agency announced Friday.
Our discussion, in media and in law, has been about Trump’s excesses and boundary-crossing. A better starting place would be the laziness and uselessness of the Article I branch.
To discuss the decision on tariffs, start with chronic illness. The human barnacle named Sen. Patty Murray berated Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in 2025 for cutting some research grants that Congress had funded, and he asked her in response what she had done about the crisis in American chronic illness. Ever. In her decades in Congress.
The U.S. Supreme Court may have ruled against President Trump’s use of an emergency economics law to impose tariffs on foreign countries, but that doesn’t mean the president is left without other measures he can pursue to implement them.
‘As they interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China. That approach does not make much sense’
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump’s tariffs under an emergency act are unlawful, a conclusion Justice Brett Kavanaugh said “does not make much sense” in his dissent.
Trump declared two national emergencies in early 2025, one addressing drug trafficking and the other trade imbalances with other countries — like China — that have harmed Americans. As a result, Trump imposed tariffs on several nations, including China, Canada and Mexico.
The Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Solutions Inc., that the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”
But Kavanaugh, dissenting alongside Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, tore into the ruling.
Kavanaugh argued that IEEPA gives Trump broad authority to regulate international economic transactions during declared national emergencies, including the “importation” of foreign goods.
As Kavanaugh pointed out, “The sole legal question here is whether, under IEEPA, tariffs are a means to ‘regulate … importation.’ Statutory text, history, and precedent demonstrate that the answer is clearly yes: Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation.”
But it apparently was not “clear” to the majority.
Kavanaugh referenced historical precedent to back up his opinion, noting that President Richard Nixon imposed a 10 percent tariff on most foreign imports in 1971 under the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), which authorized the president to “regulate … importation.” Such tariffs were upheld under that framing, which is the same language found in the IEEPA.
In creating IEEPA, as Kavanaugh wrote, Congress divided TWEA “into two separate statutes,” though “Congress retained that same ‘regulate … importation’ language in both laws — in TWEA for wartime and in IEEPA for peacetime national emergencies. In doing so, Members of Congress were plainly aware — after all, how could they not be — that the ‘regulate … importation’ language had recently been invoked by the President and interpreted by the courts to encompass tariffs.”
“If Congress wanted to exclude tariffs from IEEPA’s scope, why would it enact the exact statutory language from TWEA that had just been invoked by the President and interpreted by the courts to cover tariffs? Neither the plaintiffs nor the Court today offers a good answer to that question. Understandably so, because there is no good answer,” he continued.
Kavanaugh also noted that one year before IEEPA was enacted, the Supreme Court “unanimously ruled that a similarly worded statute authorizing the President to ‘adjust the imports’ permitted President Ford to impose monetary exactions on foreign oil imports.”
Kavanaugh also accused the majority of trying “to dodge the force of the Nixon tariffs by observing that one appeals court’s interpretation of ‘regulate … importation’ to uphold President Nixon’s tariffs does not suffice to describe that interpretation as ‘well-settled’ when IEEPA was enacted in 1977. Fair enough.”
“But that is not the right question,” Kavanaugh continues. “The question is what Members of Congress and the public would have understood ‘regulate … importation’ to mean when Congress enacted IEEPA in 1977. Given the significant and well-known Nixon tariffs, it is entirely implausible to think that Congress’s 1977 re-enactment of the phrase ‘regulate … importation’ in IEEPA was somehow meant or understood to exclude tariffs.”
“Any citizens or Members of Congress in 1977 who somehow thought that the ‘regulate … importation’ language in IEEPA excluded tariffs would have had their heads in the sand,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Kavanaugh also questioned the rationality of the majority trying to limit the president’s authority while simultaneously allowing him a broader authority.
“The plaintiffs and the Court acknowledge that IEEPA authorizes the President to impose quotas or embargoes on foreign imports — meaning that a President could completely block some or all imports. But they say that IEEPA does not authorize the President to employ the lesser power of tariffs, which simply condition imports on a payment.”
“As they interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China. That approach does not make much sense,” he wrote.
Kavanaugh ended his opinion by essentially arguing that the majority concluded President Trump merely “checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs” — even though IEEPA, under his interpretation, would have been sufficient.
“Although I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case — albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require. “
