The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was designed to restore the constitutional balance in decisions to commit the United States to armed conflict. Its central provision — a legislative veto enabling Congress to direct the withdrawal of American forces by concurrent resolution — was cast into legal doubt by the Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in INS v. Chadha. But Chadha was wrongly decided, its reasoning is exceptionally weak, and the Court’s subsequent embrace of functionalism in separation-of-powers cases has left it incoherent as precedent. As the United States drifts deeply into a congressionally unauthorized war with Iran, the case for overruling Chadha, or at minimum limiting it to its facts, has never been stronger.
Archiv: Amy Vivian Coney Barrett (US Supreme Court judge)
Justices: Current Members
John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, (…)
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, (…)
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, (…)
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, (…)
Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, (…)
Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice, (…)
Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice, (…)
Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice, (…)
Ketanji Brown Jackson, Associate Justice, (…)
6 Takeaways From the Supreme Court’s Tariff Decision
(February 20, 2026)
The tariff decision was the first time the court had issued a merits decision, a final decision squarely on the legality of one of Mr. Trump’s second-term executive actions. It marked a muscular show of independence by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the majority opinion striking down the president’s expansive tariffs. Two of the three conservative justices appointed by Mr. Trump during his first term, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil M. Gorsuch, joined the chief justice in rejecting the president’s signature economic policy.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 24A931 DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. J. G. G., ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
J USTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE K AGAN and J USTICE J ACKSON join, and with whom J USTICE BARRETT joins as to Parts II and III–B, dissenting.
(…)
There is, of course, no ongoing war between the United States and Venezuela.
(…)
Congress requires the President to “mak[e] public proclamation” of his intention to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. §21. President Trump did just the opposite. In what can be understood only as covert preparation to skirt both the requirements of the Act and the Constitution’s guarantee of due process, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began moving Venezuelan migrants from Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers across the country to the El Valle Detention Facility in South Texas before the President had even signed the Proclamation. ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___ 2025 WL 890401, *3 (D DC, Mar. 24, 2025). The transferred detainees, most of whom denied past or present affiliation with any gang, did not know the reason for their transfer until the evening of Friday, March 14, when they were apparently “pulled from their cells and told that they would be deported the next day to an unknown destination.”
B
Suspecting that the President had covertly signed a Proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act, several lawyers anticipated their clients’ imminent deportation and filed a putative class action in the District of Columbia. App. to Brief in Opposition To Application To Vacate 9a (App. to BIO). They contested that Tren de Aragua had committed or attempted the kind of “ ‘invasion’ ” or “ ‘predatory incursion’ ” required to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. Ibid. They also asserted that it would violate the Due Process Clause to deport their clients before they had any chance to challenge the Government’s allegations of gang membership. Id., at 26a. The plaintiffs did not seek release from custody, but asked the court only to restrain the Government’s planned deportations under the Proclamation. Id., at 9a, 29a.
In the early morning of March 15, the District Court informed the Government of the lawsuit and scheduled an emergency hearing. Despite knowing of plaintiffs’ claim
that it would be unlawful to remove them under the Proclamation, the Government ushered the named plaintiffs onto planes along with dozens of other detainees, all without any opportunity to contact their lawyers, much less notice or opportunity to be heard.
Supreme Court requires noncitizens to challenge detention and removal in Texas
Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a 17-page dissent joined in full by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson and in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She contended that her colleagues’ “decision to intervene in this litigation is as inexplicable as it is dangerous.”
Jackson wrote her own two-page dissent in which she lamented that the majority’s “fly-by-night approach to the work of the Supreme Court is not only misguided. It is also dangerous.”
The 1798 law at the center of the case is the Alien Enemies Act, which allows the president to detain or deport citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing or any other review by a court if either of two things occurs: Congress declares war, or there is an “invasion” or “predatory incursion.” The law has been invoked only three times – during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, ET AL., APPLICANTS 21A244 v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, ET AL
(13.01.2022)
Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided. The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no “everyday exercise of federal power.” In re MCP No. 165, 20 F. 4th, at 272 (Sutton, C. J., dissenting). It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees. “We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 594
U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (per curiam) (slip op., at 6) (internal quotation marks omitted). There can be little doubt that OSHA’s mandate qualifies as an exercise of such authority. The question, then, is whether the Act plainly authorizes the Secretary’s mandate. It does not. The Act empowers the Secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures.
(…)
The Solicitor General does not dispute that OSHA is limited to regulating “work-related dangers.” Response Brief for OSHA in No. 21A244 etc., p. 45 (OSHA Response). She instead argues that the risk of contracting COVID–19 qualifies as such a danger. We cannot agree. Although COVID–19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.
Biden rips Supreme Court decision on race-based college admissions: ‚Not a normal court‘
(29.06.2023)
„A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination,“ Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. „In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race.“
„Many universities have for too long done just the opposite,“ Roberts continued. „And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.“
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, ET AL., APPLICANTS 21A244 v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, ET AL
(13.01.2022)
Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided. The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no “everyday exercise of federal power.” In re MCP No. 165, 20 F. 4th, at 272 (Sutton, C. J., dissenting). It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees. “We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 594
U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (per curiam) (slip op., at 6) (internal quotation marks omitted). There can be little doubt that OSHA’s mandate qualifies as an exercise of such authority. The question, then, is whether the Act plainly authorizes the Secretary’s mandate. It does not. The Act empowers the Secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures.
(…)
The Solicitor General does not dispute that OSHA is limited to regulating “work-related dangers.” Response Brief for OSHA in No. 21A244 etc., p. 45 (OSHA Response). She instead argues that the risk of contracting COVID–19 qualifies as such a danger. We cannot agree. Although COVID–19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, ET AL., APPLICANTS 21A244 v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, ET AL
(13.01.2022)
Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided. The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no “everyday exercise of federal power.” In re MCP No. 165, 20 F. 4th, at 272 (Sutton, C. J., dissenting). It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees. “We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 594
U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (per curiam) (slip op., at 6) (internal quotation marks omitted). There can be little doubt that OSHA’s mandate qualifies as an exercise of such authority. The question, then, is whether the Act plainly authorizes the Secretary’s mandate. It does not. The Act empowers the Secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures.
(…)
The Solicitor General does not dispute that OSHA is limited to regulating “work-related dangers.” Response Brief for OSHA in No. 21A244 etc., p. 45 (OSHA Response). She instead argues that the risk of contracting COVID–19 qualifies as such a danger. We cannot agree. Although COVID–19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, ET AL., APPLICANTS 21A244 v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, ET AL
(13.01.2022)
Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided. The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no “everyday exercise of federal power.” In re MCP No. 165, 20 F. 4th, at 272 (Sutton, C. J., dissenting). It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees. “We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 594
U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (per curiam) (slip op., at 6) (internal
quotation marks omitted). There can be little doubt that
OSHA’s mandate qualifies as an exercise of such authority.
The question, then, is whether the Act plainly authorizes
the Secretary’s mandate. It does not. The Act empowers
the Secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures.
(…)
The Solicitor General does not dispute that OSHA is lim-
ited to regulating “work-related dangers.” Response Brief
for OSHA in No. 21A244 etc., p. 45 (OSHA Response). She
instead argues that the risk of contracting COVID–19 qual-
ifies as such a danger. We cannot agree. Although COVID–
19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from
crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.
President Trump hosts swearing-in ceremony for Amy Coney Barrett
(video)
Amy Coney Barrett sworn in as newest Supreme Court justice
The Senate confirmed Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Monday, just days before Election Day, solidifying the conservative majority on the court as it is set to consider several high-profile cases in the coming months. She was sworn in shortly thereafter by Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas at the White House.
Supreme Court – US-Senat bestätigt Richterin Amy Coney Barrett
Die Entscheidung fiel mit den Stimmen von 52 republikanischen Mitgliedern des Senats, die 47 Demokraten und eine Republikanerin stimmten dagegen. Mit Barrett bekommen die Konservativen am Obersten Gericht die dominierende Mehrheit von sechs der neun Sitze
WATCH LIVE: Senate debates Supreme Court confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett
(video)
GOP clears key hurdle on Barrett‘s Supreme Court nomination, setting up Monday confirmation
Senators voted 51-48 to begin winding down debate on Barrett’s nomination. GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) voted with Democrats against moving forward.
A final vote to confirm Barrett to the Supreme Court is expected to take place by Monday evening, roughly a month after President Trump announced his intention to nominate her to succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Democrats, trying everything, fail to derail Amy Coney Barrett confirmation
But Barrett is hurtling toward confirmation.
And there’s nothing Democrats can do about it.
Barrett meets with senators ahead of committee vote on Supreme Court nomination
Senate Judiciary Committee to vote on Barrett‘s nomination Thursday
US-Senat stimmt über Richterkandidatin ab
Der Justizausschuss des US-Senats stimmt morgen über die konservative Juristin Amy Coney Barrett als Kandidatin für das Oberste Gericht ab. Ihre endgültige Bestätigung durch den Senat soll am Montag erfolgen.
Das können wir toppen. Harbarth ist mit 0,0 Jahren Erfahrung als Richter ins Verfassungsgericht manövriert worden. Nach 1 Tag dann Vizepräsident, nach 8 Tagen dann Vorsitzender 1. Senat, nach 1,5 Jahren dann Präsident. Easy.
Gewissermaßen noch Azubi
Amy Coney-Barrett ist seit drei Jahren Richterin. Drei. 3.
5 takeaways from Monday‘s Senate hearing on Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett
The first day of confirmation hearings for President Donald Trump‘s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett featured plenty of fiery speeches — many of them aimed at next month‘s presidential election rather than the nominee herself.
WATCH LIVE: Judge Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court confirmation hearings – Day 1
(…)
Nachfolge im Supreme Court: Barrett stellt sich dem Senat
Am ersten Tag geht es im Justizausschuss zunächst um die Vorstellung der konservativen Juristin Amy Coney Barrett und einleitende Stellungnahmen. Die Anhörung geht am Dienstag mit der Befragung der Kandidatin weiter.
Amy Coney Barrett‘s confirmation hearing to begin
The Senate Judiciary Committee will hear opening statements regarding Judge Amy Coney Barrett‘s nomination to the Supreme Court beginning Monday morning, kicking off several days of testimony by President Trump‘s pick to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Nancy Cordes has the latest.
Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearing to begin Oct. 12 as Senate ramps up COVID precautions
Republicans are hopeful that they can get Barrett confirmed to the high court before Election Day.