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: Samuel Anthony Alito 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.
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.
Alito says Congress has ‘no authority’ to regulate Supreme Court
(28.07.2023)
“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito told the Journal. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”
Although the Constitution enables Congress to structure the lower federal courts, it explicitly vests judicial power within a singular Supreme Court.
(…)
The piece also revealed Alito’s first public comments on the recent ethics push since he authored an op-ed for the same paper that was shared just before a ProPublica investigation into an undisclosed Alaskan fishing trip the justice accepted in 2008 paid for by a conservative donor was made public.
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.