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: John Glover Roberts Jr. (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, (…)
The Supreme Court May Legalize Donald Trump’s War on Iran
(March 2, 2026)
Alito responded. “The president has the power of the commander in chief. I think there has been general agreement, and (previous) cases support the authority of the president to take military action on his own in the case of an emergency, when there is not time for Congress to react.”
Alito’s answer is no longer a historical artifact.
(…)
In addition to Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts has joined the attack.
In a 1984 memo entitled “War Powers Problem,” Roberts — then an associate in Ronald Reagan’s White House counsel’s office — advised the Reagan administration to oppose legislation extending tax benefits to veterans who served in Reagan’s unauthorized military deployment to Lebanon. Roberts argued that the administration should oppose the bill simply because it mentioned Congress’s constitutional power to declare war.
(…)
Justice Brett Kavanaugh has seemingly come down on both sides of the issue regarding limiting presidential war power. In a 2015 Appeals Court ruling, the conservative judge wrote that “in justiciable cases, courts should not hesitate to enforce constitutional and statutory constraints on wartime activities.”
(…)
Additionally, Justice Clarence Thomas has also questioned whether Congress has the power to rein in presidential power related to national security. In a dissenting opinion for a 2004 Supreme Court case, Thomas wrote that the Constitution gives the president “primary responsibility” over national security and foreign policy.
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.
The Supreme Court’s Declaration of Independence
The court’s rejection of President Trump’s tariffs program is the latest in a series of clashes between him and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
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.“
Roberts scolds liberal justices for demonizing rulings they don‘t like: ‚Disturbing feature‘ of dissents
„It has become a disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of the judiciary,“ Roberts wrote. He said the majority came to its decision by adhering to court precedent „old and new“ that „requires that Congress speak clearly before a Department Secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy.“
Kagan says the Supreme Court risks becoming ‚a danger to a democratic order‘ after it axed Biden‘s student loan forgiveness plan
Kagan in a scorching dissent argued that the court itself overstepped its bounds and by doing so is barreling to a future where it is the „maker of national policy“ by failing to defer to President Joe Biden and Congress to set the national agenda.
„That is no proper role for a court,“ Kagan wrote. „And it is a danger to a democratic order.“ (…)
The chief justice agreed with Kagan that the case is about a branch of government overstepping its authority, but Roberts remained steadfast in his view that it was the executive branch.
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.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts stresses need for judicial independence
The current court term is loaded with highly charged cases, including a direct assault on Roe v. Wade and challenges to the Biden administration‘s efforts to impose vaccine or mask-wearing and testing requirements for large employers and health care workers to control the spread of Covid. The court will hear the pandemic-related cases in a special session January 7.
Roberts did not mention any of those factors. But he said the judiciary‘s power to manage its own internal affairs „insulates courts from inappropriate political influence and is crucial to preserving public trust in its work as a separate and co-equal branch of government.“
Freedom of religion is our first freedom. Yet SCOTUS has ruled that casinos can host hundreds of gamblers, while churches cannot welcome their full congregations. Justice Roberts once again got it wrong, shamefully closing church doors to their flocks.
Conservatives blast Supreme Court ruling: Roberts has ‚abandoned his oath‘
Conservative lawmakers blasted Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts after he sided with the court‘s liberal justices in a 5-4 decision Friday that rejected a Nevada church’s request to block the state government from enforcing a cap on attendance at religious services.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) tweeted early Saturday morning that Roberts had „abandoned his oath.“