If the president could unilaterally change federal election law without Congress, it would destroy the design created by the Framers of the Constitution, says Cato’s @thomasberry.bsky.social.
buff.ly/puYeT1r
You can read our full brief supporting Anthropic in its lawsuit for First Amendment retaliation here:
www.cato.org/sites/cato.o...
The @cato.org was proud to join @thefireorg.bsky.social, @progresschamber.org, @eff.org, and the First Amendment Lawyers Association to file a brief supporting Anthropic in its lawsuit against the Pentagon.
www.cato.org/blog/pentago...
The government is punishing @anthropic.com because Anthropic refuses to change what its AI model will say and do. That retaliation campaign is unconstitutional, because the First Amendment protects the right to design AI models with limits and guardrails as its creators see fit.
If President Trump tries to take control of the midterm elections by executive order, he'll be defying the Constitution in an attempt to trample the authority of Congress and the states and the rights of voters. The time to draw a line is now, says @walterolson.bsky.social.
buff.ly/ok13K53
And @walterolson.bsky.social urges the administration to drop this plan now rather than run into certain trouble in the courts:
www.cato.org/blog/draw-li...
My colleague Brent Skorup digs into the "emergency" statutes that Trump might invoke to justify an executive order on the 2026 elections, and why none of them would justify a presidential overhaul of federal elections:
www.cato.org/blog/emergen...
Today at @cato.org we're covering the dangers of this reported executive order on the 2026 election from all angles. @stephenricher.bsky.social lays out just how disruptive a change it would effect:
www.cato.org/blog/trumps-...
Full blog post responding to the report of a potential executive order on elections here:
www.cato.org/blog/framers...
If the president could unilaterally change federal election law without Congress, it would destroy the Framers' design. That is why any legal claim of inherent presidential authority to regulate elections during a supposed "national security emergency" must be vigorously opposed.
The Constitution explicitly assigns to "the Congress" the power to "make or alter" election regulations "by Law" (i.e., by statute). That explicit textual command leaves no room for any claim that the President has inherent authority to alter election law by executive order.
More info and links to apply for @cato.org's legal associate position, as well as our legal internships. Apply soon; we've already filled two of our four slots for the upcoming Term.
www.cato.org/blog/graduat...
Reminder: We're still hiring legal associates at @cato.org for the upcoming Term, to start in August or September. You'll work with our legal team to draft amicus briefs in the most interesting and important cases of the year. Link to application in reply.
Typically each Supreme Court Justice only writes one majority opinion for the set of cases argued each month. Today the Court issued an opinion written by Justice Alito for one of the cases argued in November, which means he is probably not the author of the tariff case opinion.
Link to the full @cato.org brief here:
www.cato.org/blog/florida...
Florida bans noncitizens from handling voter registration forms, despite a lack of evidence that noncitizens are any more likely to abuse that trust than citizens. @cato.org has filed a brief supporting a challenge to the law as a violation of equal protection.
Here is the full article on the many options available to appoint acting officers:
news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-tax-re...
I spoke to @bloomberglaw.com about why the Trump Administration's maneuver to appoint Alina Habba and others as acting officers is neither legal nor necessary to keep the government running.
You can listen to my appearance on the @constitutionctr.bsky.social We the People Podcast here:
constitutioncenter.org/news-debate/...
Thanks so much to Jeffrey Rosen for having me on the @constitutionctr.bsky.social's We the People Podcast to debate the Trump v. Slaughter case with Professor @jedshug.bsky.social, it was a great conversation (link in reply).
Alina Habba and Lindsey Halligan aren't the only disputed acting U.S. attorneys; Sigal Shattah in Nevada is another. Now the Ninth Circuit is reviewing her appointment, and @cato.org has filed a brief explaining why she was not validly appointed. (link in reply)
I spoke with NPR immediately after yesterday's argument in the case that will likely overrule Humphrey's Executor. In my view, the only suspense left is how the Court will write the opinion, not what the opinion will hold.
www.npr.org/2025/12/09/n...
Come work with me and the legal team at @cato.org drafting briefs in the most important cases of the year. We're hiring 1-year legal associates and summer interns. See link in reply for more info and how to apply; the sooner we receive applications the better.
The attorney general appoints an acting U.S. attorney for 120 days, and then "if an appointment expires ... the district court ... may appoint a [U.S.] attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled." This holds that the AG cannot make another appointment once 120 days expires.
The vast majority of the argument was devoted to the question whether the statute authorizes tariffs *at all.* Less discussed was whether these particular tariffs are justified as necessary to "deal with" a genuine emergency, given that trade deficits have existed for 50 years.
One thing I've never seen before: during seriatim questions when only one justice is allowed to speak at a time, Sotomayor asked Kavanaugh to nod yes if he was planning to ask about an issue, so she wouldn't have to. He did, so she passed.
Scott Bessent, Howard Lutnick, and Jamieson Greer were sitting right behind me and kept poker faces throughout (I glanced back when Roberts pressed the SG on who pays for tariffs).
