The decision was issued by conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who handles emergency cases rising from parts of the Midwest. Kavanaugh did not refer the case to the full court, a signal that he didnât think the emergency appeal was significant enough to do so. He also did not explain his reasoning, and there were no dissents.
Archiv: Verfassungsgerichte / Oberste Gerichte / Supreme Courts / High Courts
âWe Are in a Constitutional Crisisâ: Congress Urged to Sue Trump to End Iran War
With no end in sight to President Donald Trumpâs illegal war with Iran, Congress is being urged to take legal action to bring the conflict to an end.
Jamal Abdi, executive director at National Iranian American Council (NIAC) Action, said on Wednesday that Congress must go to court to enforce the war powers resolution that passed in the House and the Senate earlier this year.
Twilightâs Last Gleaming
There is a point in the decline of republics when the problem is no longer that government breaks its own laws. Governments will always behave unlawfully. The deeper problem comes when the constitutional machinery designed to prevent those acts stops functioning â when spending becomes detached from arithmetic, presidential power becomes detached from law and Congress and the courts become detached from the Constitution.
Thatâs where America is today.
(…)
The twilight of our constitutional republic has not arrived because the sun suddenly disappeared. It has arrived because, little by little, nearly everyone became accustomed to the darkness.
Warum der VerÂfasÂsungsÂschutz schon jetzt heimÂlich in WohÂnungen einÂbÂreÂchen darf
(August 24, 2026)
Die aktuelle Aufregung ĂŒbersieht, dass die heimlichen Betretungsbefugnisse nicht neu sind â sondern lĂ€ngst RealitĂ€t. Mitarbeiter des Landesverfassungsschutzes dĂŒrfen in Nordrhein-Westfalen, Hessen, Bayern und Rheinland-Pfalz heimlich in Wohnungen einbrechen. So sehen es die dortigen Landesgesetze vor. In Bayern gilt das schon seit 2016.
(…)
Das Bundesamt fĂŒr Verfassungsschutz darf seit einer Reform der Sicherheitsgesetze nach 9/11 im Jahr 2002 heimlich WohnrĂ€ume ĂŒberwachen. Zwar steht nicht im Gesetz, dass der Verfassungsschutz dafĂŒr auch einbrechen darf, um heimlich Technik anzubringen. Allerdings wird das in der rechtlichen Kommentierung zu § 9 Abs. 2 des Bundesverfassungsschutzgesetzes vorausgesetzt. Der notwendige Einbruch soll also schlicht mitgemeint sein.
R (on the application of Ammori) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)
Case ID
UKSC/2026/0099
Parties
Appellant(s)
Huda Ammori
Respondent(s)
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Issue
Was the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to proscribe Palestine Action under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 lawful?
(…)
Full hearing
Start date
4 November 2026
End date
5 November 2026
UK Supreme Court to hear appeal over Palestine Action proscription in November
The UK Supreme Court has confirmed it will hear an appeal by Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori challenging the governmentâs proscription of the group as a terrorist organization. The hearing is scheduled for November 4-5.
The legal battle stems from the Home Secretaryâs decision in July 2025 to ban Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Streit um Corona-Ursprung: US-Senatsausschuss erklĂ€rt Fauci schuldig â kommt er jetzt vor Gericht?
Anthony Fauci hat bei einer Anhörung mehr als 100-mal die Aussage verweigert. Nun hat ein republikanisch gefĂŒhrter Senatsausschuss ein Verfahren wegen Missachtung des Kongresses angestossen.
Senate panel votes to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress
Republican chairman Rand Paul has said he will send the committeeâs recommendation straight to the Justice Department, bypassing a full Senate vote in a break with precedent thatâs likely to set up a high-stakes legal and political test for the Trump administration.
Vice President JD Vance will now first need to sign off on the committeeâs circumvention of long-established rules due to his constitutional role as president of the Senate. Then it would be up to the Justice Department to decide whether to bring formal charges.
Rep. Massie Joins Democrats in Attempt To Sue White House Over Iran War
(July 27, 2026)
The War Powers Resolution was passed by both the House and Senate in June, marking the first time Congress approved a concurrent resolution under the 1973 War Powers Act directing the termination of an unauthorized war.
Section 5(c) of the 1973 War Powers Act states that âat any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.â
Trump critic Massie joins Democrats in unprecedented bid to sue White House over Iran war
(July 27, 2026)
Massie accused Trump and Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth of being „in blatant violation of two sections of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.“
„For the first time since the law was enacted, a concurrent resolution has passed in accordance with 5(c) of the law, but the White House has ignored it. It seems theyâve assumed the law is unconstitutional, but no court has ever found that to be the case, so the law remains on the books while the White House flouts it. In the 1983 case INS v. Chadha, the Supreme Court did not opine on the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Itâs time for the courts to settle this, and thatâs what our legislation directs,“ Massie said.
Explainer: Congress backed an Iran war powers resolution. Now what?
(June 9, 2026)
However, legal experts said the issue is not settled law. No concurrent resolution under âthe 1973 war powers law had passed since the law was enacted.
„The executive branch will likely ignore it on constitutional grounds, and itâs not clear who might have âstanding to sue to enforce it,“ said Scott Anderson, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and senior editor of the online legal publication Lawfare, although he added that he expected someone âwould.
DER MOLOCH (II): Direktive, Direktive ĂŒber alles? Das Urteil aus Karlsruhe
(March 3, 2010)
Aus BrĂŒssel heraus vollzieht sich die epochale Transformation von Staatsgebilden eines Kontinents zu einer sich selbst begrĂŒndenden Plutokratie, in einer wunderbaren Welt der Supranationalisten. Ăber einen Baustein in diesem epischen, imperialen Konstrukt, entschied gestern nun das Bundesverfassungsgericht in Karlsruhe. Es entschied, dass die âVorratsdatenspeicherungâ, die flĂ€chendeckende, anlasslose TelekommunikationsĂŒberwachung der Bevölkerung, vereinbar sei mit dem Grundgesetz. So umging das oberste Gremium der Republik einen offiziellen Staatsstreich: die Aufhebung des Grundgesetzes als Verfassung und dessen Unterordnung unter âeuropĂ€isches Rechtâ, mithin die ErklĂ€rung der Bundesrepublik als Bundesstaat der âEuropĂ€ischen Unionâ.
NEW: Congress just passed resolutions to block Trump from continuing the Iran War. The resolutions carry the force of law under the text of the 1973 War Powers Act. Now, @RoKhanna tells me he is working to organize lawmakers to bring an historic court case to enforce the law.
(video)
Supreme Court rejects Trump‘s attempt to fire Fed‘s Lisa Cook as legal battle continues
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
To accept the government‘s arguments that Mr. Trump can fire Cook „would in effect transform the Federal Reserve‘s for-cause protection into at-will employment â an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation‘s tradition of central banking protected from political interference,“ the chief justice wrote.
The court‘s decision is narrow and declines to define what constitutes „cause“ under the federal law that created the Fed. It said such a definition must reflect the central bank‘s „unique historical status and role.“
Supreme Court rules states can accept mail ballots after Election Day
Justice Amy Coney Barrett said it doesnât conflict with federal law, which sets âthe Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in Novemberâ as the âday for the election.â
âThe election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose,â Barrett wrote.
She and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the courtâs three liberal justices in the majority. The courtâs four other conservative justices dissented.
Supreme Court rejects Trump‘s appeal of 2022 E. Jean Carroll defamation case
The Supreme Court has denied President Donald Trump‘s appeal of the $5 million jury finding in the 2022 defamation case brought against him by the writer E. Jean Carroll.
The denial means the judgment against Trump stands and that he will have to pay it.
Supreme Court won‘t hear Trump‘s appeal of E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse case
The writer E. Jean Carroll triumphed over President Trump on Monday when the Supreme Court refused to consider overturning a jury‘s verdict that he was liable for sexually abusing and defaming her.
The unanimous federal jury found that a preponderance of evidence supported Carroll‘s claim that Mr. Trump sexually abused her during a mid-1990s encounter in a New York City department store. Mr. Trump did not attend the 2023 civil trial, and his attorneys called no witnesses before the jury awarded Carroll $5 million.
Trump Lashes Out at âMeaninglessâ Senate Rebuke Over Iran War
Jun 24, 2026 11:30 AM CET)
Trump claims that his war on Iran doesnât need congressional approval because a cease-fire that took effect on April 8 effectively ended it. His Administration also argues that the 1973 law is âunconstitutionalâ and that the Administration only complies with parts of it to maintain good relations with the legislative branch.
Others, however, argue that Congressâ authority over declarations of war allows for the method. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D, N.Y.), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who sponsored the House war powers resolution, said in a statement that he will make sure that the Administration adheres to it: âRegardless of what President Trump says, this measure is binding under the War Powers Resolution, and I will explore all legal avenues to ensure the Executive complies with the will of Congress.â
Meeks Statement on Senate Passage of His Iran War Powers Resolution
Washington, DC — Representative Gregory W. Meeks, Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, today issued a statement following the Senateâs approval of his War Powers Resolution which passed the House of Representatives earlier this month. The Senate passed the Resolution 50-48.
Having passed both chambers as a Concurrent Resolution, this measure does not go to the presidentâs desk for signature. Under the War Powers Resolution, however, it is binding on the president and directs him to cease hostilities against Iran.
âWith the Senate passage of my Iran War Powers Resolution, both chambers have now made clear that the president cannot continue this war of choice and must cease all hostilities against Iran. Regardless of what President Trump says, this measure is binding under the War Powers Resolution, and I will explore all legal avenues to ensure the Executive complies with the will of Congress.
US Supreme Court: Wo Trumps Macht endet
lIn den USA ist das Gericht nicht nur eine Instanz der Kontrolle von WeiĂem Haus und Kongress, sondern wird selbst als „dritte SĂ€ule der Regierung“ bezeichnet. Seine Entscheidungen haben das Land oft nachhaltiger geprĂ€gt als PrĂ€sidenten und Abgeordnete.
Das liegt zum einen daran, dass Richter auf Lebenszeit berufen sind und deshalb keine Wahlen fĂŒrchten mĂŒssen. Zum anderen haben Entscheidungen des Supreme Courts unmittelbar Gesetzeskraft.
Palestine Action ban is lawful, Court of Appeal rules
(today)
The government‘s proscription of Palestine Action as a terror organisation is lawful, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
In one of the most significant rulings on national security in recent years, five of the most senior judges in the country overturned an earlier decision from the High Court that the ban had breached the right to protest and had been incorrectly taken by ministers.
But five Court of Appeal judges concluded in a hearing on Monday that the ban had been „justified and proportionate“.
The Court Gutted Congressâs War Power. Itâs Time to Give It Back.
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 â a legislative veto enabling Congress to direct the withdrawal of American forces by concurrent resolution â was cast into legal doubt by the Supreme Courtâs 1983 decision in INS v. Chadha. But Chadha was wrongly decided, its reasoning is exceptionally weak, and the Courtâs 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.
Als das Bundesverfassungsgericht Deutschland zur elektronischen Kolonie erklÀrte
(June 15, 2017)
Mit seinen BeschlĂŒssen 2 BvE 5/15 (verkĂŒndet am 14.10.2016, aber schon vom 20.09.2016) und 2 BvE 2/15 (verkĂŒndet am 15.11.2016, aber schon vom 13.10.2016) gab das Bundesverfassungsgericht das unauffĂ€llige Startsignal fĂŒr den Beschluss des neuen B.N.D.-Gesetzes am 21.10.2016 im Bundestag.
Die Absegnung des B.N.D.-Gesetzes durch ihre Ăber-Dreiviertel-Mehrheit im Parlament, gegen die es laut Karlsruhe nun keine Opposition mehr im Sinne von Artikel 44 des Grundgesetzes gab, hatte die Regierung bis zu den Freifahrtscheinen der Verfassungsrichter taktisch verzögert.
Am 12. Dezember 1970 hatte das âAbhörteilâ (BVerfGE 30, 1) vom Verfassungsgericht Westdeutschlands die Aufhebung der Gewaltenteilung beim Brief-, Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnis durch die VerfassungsĂ€nderungen der âNotstandsgesetzeâ als verfassungsgemÀà beurteilt. Das damalige Urteil war gegen schwerste Bedenken und vorausschauende Warnungen der Verfassungsrichter Geller, Dr. v.Schlabrendorff und Dr. Rupp mit 5 zu 3 Stimmen entschieden worden.
Im Jahre 2016 nun ĂŒbertrugen Andreas VoĂkuhle, Peter M. Huber, Monika Hermanns, Sibylle Kessal-Wulf, Peter MĂŒller, Doris König und Ulrich Maidowski die MachtfĂŒlle der in 1968 unter Besatzungsrecht geschaffenen âNotstandsgesetzeâ der damaligen âgroĂen Koalitionâ auf deren heutige Nachfolger.
Und in Deutschland, wie es heute ist, eskalierten die Verfassungsrichter selbst die damalige antidemokratische und antiparlamentarische Auslegung des Grundgesetzes ein weiteres Mal…
Exclusive: Democrats Explore Suing Trump If He Ignores Congress on Iran War
(April 28, 2026)
The emerging discussions mark the clearest sign yet that Democrats, repeatedly blocked in their attempts to restrain the war through floor votes, are searching for new ways to force a constitutional reckoning over who decides when America goes to war.
(…)
While itâs unclear how Republicans will ultimately vote, Schiff urged caution about relying on the courts. âThe Supreme Court has been very selective about offering Congress standing to any litigation,â he says. âIt‘s not a strategy I would want to rely onâŠ