The Supreme Court ruled in February 2026 that Trump's emergency tariff powers didn't extend to imposing tariffs

The Supreme Court has greatly expanded executive power in recent years

In Trump v. United States, the court ruled that a former president enjoys absolute immunity for "official acts" in his constitutional core powers. In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the court limited federal courts' ability to block executive enforcement through nationwide injunctions—decisions that shifted power toward the executive branch.

Trump's 2025 tariffs represent a significant break from the rules-based trade order

The Trump administration imposed broad tariffs on other countries outside WTO rules in 2025, claiming that those countries had long violated trade agreements and that the US was simply leveling the playing field.

The 2025-26 Supreme Court docket is poised to reshape presidential power

As the Supreme Court begins a new term, several major cases could define the scope of presidential authority. The court may rule on President Trump's efforts to control state National Guard units, fire independent officials, impose tariffs, and cut congressionally mandated federal spending.

The Supreme Court curbed the EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions in 2022

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the EPA exceeded its authority by requiring industrywide carbon cuts. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion invoked the "major questions" doctrine, which limits the ability of federal agencies to act without explicit congressional approval.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer established the framework courts use to evaluate presidential war powers

When Truman seized US steel mills during the Korean War, the Supreme Court ruled that he had overstepped his authority. Justice Jackson's concurring opinion held that presidential power is strongest when Congress authorizes action, uncertain when Congress is silent, and weakest when Congress explicitly refuses authorization.

The Supreme Court limited federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions in 2025

In a 2025 decision arising from litigation over a presidential order on birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court held that individual federal judges may not nationwide block executive policies—curbing the use of sweeping injunctions and reshaping how constitutional challenges proceed through the courts.

Courts have blocked the Trump administration's 2025 executive order limiting birthright citizenship

In June 2025, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the order. Since then, two federal appellate courts have found the order unconstitutional, halting its enforcement nationwide.

Despite the Supreme Court ruling that President Donald Trump's 2025 tariffs were unconstitutional, billions of dollars in refunds remain unresolved

Over 2,000 lawsuits seeking refunds have been filed by major companies, including FedEx and Costco, but CBP says its systems can't handle the volume. Interest on unpaid refunds is accruing at an estimated $650M per month.

The Prize Cases established that the president can respond to an attack without waiting for Congress to act

When Lincoln blockaded Confederate ports at the start of the Civil War without congressional authorization, the Supreme Court upheld his actions, ruling that a president does not initiate war by responding to an attack and need not wait for Congress when the nation is already under threat.

The Supreme Court has never definitively settled federal war powers

Despite more than two centuries of conflict over war powers, the Supreme Court has consistently avoided defining the precise boundary between congressional and executive authority, leaving that boundary to be contested by the political branches.

See a chart showing how US tariff revenue has grown in recent years.

The overall economic effect of President Trump's 2025 tariffs remains unclear

Researchers from UCLA and Yale found that tariff revenue and gains to US producers largely offset importers' costs—but the broader picture is murkier, as the trade deficit rose, manufacturing jobs declined, and 90% of tariff costs were passed through to importers rather than absorbed by foreign exporters.

Experts believe a Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship is likely in 2026

In September 2025, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to review lower court rulings striking down its executive order on birthright citizenship. If the court takes the case, a decision is expected by mid-2026.

Learn more about the unitary executive theory, a view of presidential power

The unitary executive theory holds that all executive authority rests with the president, giving them direct control over federal agencies. President Trump has invoked this theory to justify consolidating power and directing administrative actions without congressional input.

Read an overview of US tariff policy before the second Trump Administration

This comprehensive report from the Congressional Research Service explores the evolving role of tariffs—from a major source of government revenue to a tool for trade and foreign policy—providing insights into current practices, legal foundations, and global trade dynamics.

Congress has unsuccessfully voted on war powers resolutions over Trump's military operations in Venezuela and Iran

After Trump ordered unilateral military operations in both Venezuela and Iran without congressional authorization, lawmakers from both parties introduced war powers resolutions to block further action. Each effort failed, with Republican majorities largely supporting the president.

President Trump's 2025 Tariffs added less inflationary pressure to the economy than expected in their first year

A year after the so-called "Liberation Day" in April 2025, tariffs have had a milder effect on inflation than feared—core goods prices have added only about 0.2% to the headline Consumer Price Index—but persistent policy uncertainty has rattled small business owners, who say the constant back-and-forth makes long-term planning difficult.

Track how American tariffs have impacted different countries and industries.

The president can deploy the military domestically with minimal oversight

The Insurrection Act of 1807 allows the president to send federal troops into American states during unrest or rebellion, even without a governor's consent. The modern use of the law grants broad discretion and limited congressional or judicial oversight.

Trump's 2025 asylum suspension departed from a policy framework in place since 1980

In January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order suspending the asylum program and halting application processing at the southern border. This represents a departure from recent American asylum policy traditions and international humanitarian commitments.

An economic evaluation of US tariffs

Most economists agree that the implementation of large-scale tariffs on foreign goods would hurt both the American and global economies. This video from The Wall Street Journal explains the rationale for tariffs as a tool for domestic job creation, but explains why they may hurt the overall economy.

Tariffs once fueled the US economy, historically serving as a primary source of revenue and a means to protect domestic industries.

The nullification crisis tested whether states could defy federal law

In the 1830s, South Carolina declared federal tariffs void within its borders. President Andrew Jackson threatened military force, Congress passed a compromise tariff, and the episode ended with federal authority prevailing over state nullification.

A formal declaration of war automatically triggers hundreds of statutes granting the president sweeping domestic authority

Beyond authorizing military force abroad, a formal declaration activates a wide range of domestic powers, including authority over enemy property, trade restrictions, and emergency economic authority. It also waives the 60-day time limits under the War Powers Resolution.

Presidents now rely on executive agreements instead of formal treaties

Formal treaties—requiring two-thirds Senate approval—have become rare in American foreign policy. Modern presidents increasingly use executive agreements, which don't need congressional consent, allowing faster diplomacy but reducing legislative oversight and transparency.

John Marshall advanced federal supremacy and judicial review

Marshall's jurisprudence emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, enforceable by an independent judiciary. Through his court's decisions, he affirmed judicial review, broad implied powers for Congress, and federal authority to override conflicting state laws.

Congress has handled past crises through emergency lawmaking and institutional expansion

In a 2020 podcast from the National Constitution Center, historians and political scientists examine how Congress navigated past national crises—particularly the Civil War—and what those moments reveal about governing today.

When the US hits the debt ceiling, the Treasury uses emergency measures to avoid default

After the US reached its debt ceiling in January 2023, the Treasury deployed "extraordinary measures" to keep paying obligations. This article explains the steps, how they work, and why they last only for a limited time. (Some readers may experience a paywall.)

How the Trump administration explained the firing of the NSF's National Science Board

The White House argued that the April 24, 2026, decision resulted from the 2021 US v. Arthrex Supreme Court ruling, which "set limits on the powers of executive branch officials who are not Senate-confirmed" and therefore conflicts with the law that created the NSB. As of May 2026, the administration has yet to explain its next steps for the advisory arm of the National Science Foundation, which has lost about a third of its staff since the start of 2025.

A majority of Americans think President Trump is using more power than previous presidents

An October 2025 Pew Research Center survey found that 69% of Americans believed President Trump was trying to exert more power than previous presidents. Most Democrats viewed it negatively, while about half of Republicans said it was good for the country.

A trade war is an economic conflict where nations impose tariffs or other trade barriers on each other in retaliation for similar actions.

The president can federalize state National Guard units during national emergencies

While the governor usually commands their state's National Guard, the president can assume control—federalizing the guard—under laws like the Insurrection Act or Title 10. Once federalized, troops operate under the US military chain of command.

What Trump's executive order provides TikTok

Just a few days into his second term, President Trump paused the US law banning TikTok through an executive order. While that may sound like an all-out reversal, it's more of a time out, granting ByteDance an additional 75 days to find a US-based seller. This resource breaks down what Trump's executive order provides the Chinese company and what it might mean for the future of the app.

Donald Trump was impeached in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress

The House charged President Trump with pressuring Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden while withholding military aid. The Senate acquitted him in February 2020, with only one Republican voting to convict.

The commerce clause gives the federal government authority to regulate interstate economic activity

This short constitutional provision has allowed Congress to regulate everything from wheat production to racial segregation, greatly expanding federal power by linking national authority to interstate economic activity.

A single 1803 Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison, gave courts the power to strike down acts of Congress.

Presidents from both parties have resisted the authority of the War Powers Act

Presidents from both parties have treated the War Powers Resolution as voluntary, framing compliance as seeking "support" rather than "permission." Courts have declined to rule on the law's constitutionality each time a related case was brought before them.

Explore the specific authorities granted to Congress: the 'enumerated powers'

The Constitution grants Congress a list of powers—including taxing, regulating interstate commerce, and declaring war—while powers not explicitly listed are reserved to the states or the people, defining the federal government's scope of authority.

A legal scholar argues that the existing war powers framework may collapse in the event of a major power conflict

The legal tests presidents have used to avoid seeking congressional authorization were designed for weaker adversaries. This piece argues that those tests fail against similarly armed competitors, where even limited strikes risk significant escalation, potentially triggering a constitutional crisis over who has the authority to respond.

Presidents have often used military force without formal declarations of war

Although the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, American presidents have repeatedly ordered military action without formal declarations. These precedents have expanded executive authority in national security beyond what the framers likely envisioned.

Gibbons v. Ogden expanded federal power over interstate commerce

In 1824, the Supreme Court unanimously invalidated a New York steamboat monopoly, ruling that navigation between states constitutes interstate commerce. Chief Justice John Marshall held that Congress has authority over such commerce and that conflicting state laws are void under the supremacy clause.

The Supreme Court blocked states from setting term limits for Congress

In US Term Limits v. Thornton (1995), the Supreme Court struck down state laws that tried to impose term limits on their congressional delegations. The court ruled such restrictions unconstitutional unless added through a federal amendment.

The War Powers Act may have ironically given presidents more discretion to engage in hostilities, not less

In this wide-ranging podcast on Congress's power to declare war, scholar Gary Schmitt argues that the War Powers Act, ironically, gave presidents a legal framework for initiating hostilities, creating a 60-day window for unilateral action that hadn't existed before.

Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist 69 that the president's military authority was far more limited than a king's

Hamilton wrote that the president's commander-in-chief role amounted to little more than the authority to command the military, while the powers to declare war, raise armies, and regulate fleets belonged to the legislature. He contrasted this with the British king to argue that the executive posed no threat of tyranny.

The president's powers are defined in Article II of the US Constitution

Article II establishes the presidency, outlining powers to command the military, sign or veto legislation, appoint officials, and conduct diplomacy—many of which are intended to be checked by other branches of government.

In the midst of the Civil War, Lincoln rapidly expanded presidential power

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, expanded the army without congressional approval, and issued the Emancipation Proclamation—despite likely lacking authority to unilaterally alter national slave law. His actions set precedents for expanded presidential power in wartime.

In the SEC vs. Jarkesy ruling of 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the Securities and Exchange Commission's ability to seek civil penalties for securities fraud in-house, which significantly scaled back the agency's enforcement capabilities.

In 2018, the Supreme Court sided with American Express in a case that significantly changed antitrust regulation.

The US Department of Justice sued Visa, Mastercard, and American Express in 2010 over alleged anticompetitive contracts with merchants. While Visa and Mastercard settled out of court, American Express went to trial and had its case taken all the way up to the Supreme Court—which ruled that both sides of a transaction business must be analyzed to determine a monopoly.

The WTO's dispute settlement system has been effectively paralyzed

The US has blocked appointments to the WTO's appellate body since 2017, arguing that the panel has overstepped its mandate. Without a functioning appeals court, the WTO can no longer enforce rulings or settle disputes.

The supremacy clause establishes federal law as the highest authority

The supremacy clause states that the United States Constitution and federal laws enacted under it supersede conflicting state laws, ensuring national authority prevails when federal and state governments disagree.