Peter Gruber Rule of Law Clinic at Yale Law School

11/ In short, this case is about restoring or redefining the boundary between Congress’s lawmaking role and the President’s emergency authority.

10/ The decision here won't just affect one set of tariffs. It will determine whether future presidents can use emergency declarations to bypass Congress on trade, regulation, or other consequential matters.

9/ However, as the Clinic points out: If the Court accepts the Government’s view, a president could: declare almost any issue foreign, label it an emergency, and unilaterally change major areas of economic law. All without congressional approval.

8/ The Government argues IEEPA is a flexible statute that authorizes tariffs and that delegation concerns are unfounded because of the President's broad foreign affairs power. They emphasize judicial restraint, meaning that Courts shouldn’t second-guess national security decisions.

7/ Furthermore, if the Court interprets IEEPA so broadly that it allows tariffs, then the law would amount to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
Congress cannot hand over its core economic authority to the executive without clear limits.

6/ Courts usually avoid investigating motives. But here, without examining pretext, IEEPA becomes a loophole for any president to label any trade issue an “emergency” and bypass Congress.

5/ Amici further argue that the statute requires a genuine, unexpected foreign threat. Here, the declared “emergency” was policy pretext, not an actual crisis.

4/ Petitioners argue that Congress never delegated away its tariff authority via IEEPA and to allow tariffs in this case would mean the President can rewrite trade policy simply by declaring an emergency. This would turn the emergency power into an economic policymaking authority.

A SCOTUS Bench Memo for the Trump Tariff Case: Separation of Powers, Delegation, Emergencies, and Pretext By enacting IEEPA, did Congress authorize the president to impose tariffs? If so does, is that delegation of authority lawful?

3/ Today, several Clinic supervisors and students published a bench memo in Just Security explaining the consequential matters at stake. www.justsecurity.org/123818/scotu...

2/ Last week, the Clinic submitted an amicus brief on behalf of former senior government officials arguing that the President illegally utilized emergency powers to deploy tariffs.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Learning Resources v. Trump, questioning whether President Trump legally utilized IEEPA to impose sweeping tariffs. The case tests the limits of executive emergency power. (THREAD)

Hard to Kill: The Transnational Survival of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act The global anti-corruption regime that the United States pioneered over many decades is bigger than any one country or regime.

Despite recent efforts to weaken enforcement of the FCPA, Bruce Swartz, Sonia Mittal, Inbar Pe’er, and Brady Worthington argue that the Act remains resilient as a result of international agreements, state laws, and the potential for future enforcement. www.justsecurity.org/117726/trans...

Will to Resist: What Dartmouth Teaches Harvard About Protecting American Freedom An essay on Harvard v Trump and the landmark case when Dartmouth College Trustees fought government coercion to the Supreme Court.

Brilliant piece.

Great storytelling of a key moment in American history

When the trustees of Dartmouth showed the will to resist a government attempt to control and coerce the college.

Direct lessons for #Harvard today

By Bruce Swartz

Image is Daniel Webster arguing Dartmouth case before SCOTUS

Will to Resist: What Dartmouth Teaches Harvard About Protecting American Freedom An essay on Harvard v Trump and the landmark case when Dartmouth College Trustees fought government coercion to the Supreme Court.

Senior Rule of Law Fellow Bruce Swartz '79 writes that the history underlying the Supreme Court’s 1819 landmark decision in the Dartmouth College case holds lessons for Harvard in resisting the Trump Administration’s campaign of intimidation and attainder. www.justsecurity.org/116290/dartm...

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

After the Supreme Court’s ruling in CASA, Clinic supervisor Harold Hongju Koh, Clinic member Fred Halbhuber, and Alan Charles Raul argue that the Administrative Procedure Act offers plaintiffs a well-grounded path to fight unlawful executive action. www.justsecurity.org/115917/trump...

Share Your Story We invite you to tell us about your experience studying in the U.S. as an international student and what it has meant to you. Please share how this experience has contributed to your education, global...

Thanks for lifting up this important message, @50501movement.bsky.social! The story form link got cut off. Here is the full link: forms.gle/pNpThs2wtSzX1rZf8.

International students make America stronger and shape our world. Trump’s attacks on Harvard don’t just threaten one school. They deprive our country of influential leaders for generations. If you came to the U.S. to study at schools under attack, SHARE YOUR STORY: forms.gle/xs8gyW9DT7aP....

The Peter Gruber Rule of Law Clinic at Yale Law School helps maintain the rule of law and human rights commitments at home and abroad in a number of areas, including national security, separation of powers, constitutional right, climate change, and democracy. Learn more: tinyurl.com/24kwc77h.