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: Verfassungsgerichte / Oberste Gerichte / Supreme Courts / High Courts
Als das Bundesverfassungsgericht Deutschland zur elektronischen Kolonie erklärte
(June 15, 2017)
Mit seinen Beschlüssen 2 BvE 5/15 (verkündet am 14.10.2016, aber schon vom 20.09.2016) und 2 BvE 2/15 (verkündet am 15.11.2016, aber schon vom 13.10.2016) gab das Bundesverfassungsgericht das unauffällige Startsignal für den Beschluss des neuen B.N.D.-Gesetzes am 21.10.2016 im Bundestag.
Die Absegnung des B.N.D.-Gesetzes durch ihre Über-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 „Abhörteil“ (BVerfGE 30, 1) vom Verfassungsgericht Westdeutschlands die Aufhebung der Gewaltenteilung beim Brief-, Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnis durch die Verfassungsänderungen der „Notstandsgesetze“ als verfassungsgemäß 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 übertrugen Andreas Voßkuhle, Peter M. Huber, Monika Hermanns, Sibylle Kessal-Wulf, Peter Müller, Doris König und Ulrich Maidowski die Machtfülle der in 1968 unter Besatzungsrecht geschaffenen „Notstandsgesetze“ der damaligen „großen Koalition“ 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 it’s unclear how Republicans will ultimately vote, Schiff urged caution about relying on the courts. “The Supreme Court has been very selective about offering Congress standing to any litigation,” he says. “It‘s not a strategy I would want to rely on…
How Has the Supreme Court Ruled on the Constitutionality of the War Powers Act?
(April 23, 2026)
The Supreme Court has never issued a definitive ruling declaring the 1973 War Powers Resolution (often called the War Powers Act) constitutional or unconstitutional; instead, the Court and lower federal courts have repeatedly avoided resolving the central constitutional clash between Congress and the President over war-making authority by invoking justiciability doctrines such as standing and the political‑question doctrine [1] [2].
Supreme Court rules on key Voting Rights Act rule as Republicans and Democrats wage redistricting war
Republican National Committee (RNC) Chair Joe Gruters praised the ruling in a statement provided to Fox News Digital, describing it as a „win for fairness, the rule of law, and anyone who opposes racial gerrymandering.“
„The American people don’t want to see Americans segregated by race in their congressional maps, which is exactly what was happening in Louisiana,“ he added. „Today, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a basic constitutional principle: the government cannot discriminate on the basis of race when drawing congressional maps.
DNC Chair Ken Martin, meanwhile, lamented the ruling as a „dark day for America,“ adding that the „Supreme Court just rolled back the clock on the Civil Rights Movement.“
Live Coverage: Louisiana v. Callais SCOTUS Decision
The Supreme Court just struck down a Louisiana map that fairly represents Black voters, gutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
In major Voting Rights Act case, Supreme Court strikes down redistricting map challenged as racially discriminatory
The decision was the latest, and presumably final, chapter in a long-running dispute arising from Louisiana’s efforts to adopt a new congressional map in the wake of the 2020 census. The first map that the state adopted, in 2022, had one majority-Black district out of the six allotted to the state. A group of Black voters – who comprise roughly one-third of the state’s population – went to federal court, where they alleged that the map violated Section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits discrimination in voting.
A federal judge agreed that the 2022 map likely violated Section 2, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld that ruling. It instructed Louisiana to draw a new map by January 2024 or risk having the court adopt one for it.
The map that Louisiana drew in 2024 created a second majority-Black district, leading to the election in November of that year of Cleo Fields, a former member of Congress who had represented another majority-Black district during the 1990s.
The map also prompted the lawsuit leading to Wednesday’s opinion. It was filed by a group of “non-African American” voters who contended that the 2024 map violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause by sorting voters based on race.
Digital location data heads back to the Supreme Court
(April 24, 2026)
Background
The Supreme Court last weighed in on the digital Fourth Amendment in 2017. In Carpenter v. United States, the court addressed whether the police had to get a warrant before accessing a certain kind of digital location data, cell-site location information. Cell phones generate CSLI anytime they are on by scanning for the nearest cell tower with strong service. When a cell phone connects to a tower, that tower then records that connection in CSLI logs. A phone’s location can be tracked across time and space by reviewing those logs.
Writing for a 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts’ Carpenter opinion held that the police must get a warrant before reviewing seven or more days of CSLI for a person’s phone. (…)
Enter: geofence data
Among these unsettled questions is whether police need a warrant to access geofence data, another kind of digital location data. Geofence data generally refers to location information collected by cellphone apps. If you have encountered a prompt on your phone that asks you whether you’d like to allow an app to use your location, you’re likely generating the kind of data at issue in Chatrie. Chatrie specifically involved data generated by a Google service called Location History. In Google’s case, this location information was created by combining information from cell towers but also on GPS, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth signals.
How Has the Supreme Court Ruled on the Constitutionality of the War Powers Act?
The Supreme Court has never issued a definitive ruling declaring the 1973 War Powers Resolution (often called the War Powers Act) constitutional or unconstitutional; instead, the Court and lower federal courts have repeatedly avoided resolving the central constitutional clash between Congress and the President over war-making authority by invoking justiciability doctrines such as standing and the political‑question doctrine [1] [2].
Panicked Trump, 79, Rages at Supreme Court in 1AM Meltdown
Trump took the unusual step of sitting in on the April 1 hearing to watch the justices debate his push to end automatic birthright citizenship. The president stormed out of the hearing after the SCOTUS justices shot down several arguments from the administration’s attorney, Solicitor General D. John Sauer.
High Court of Justice Petition Accusing Police of Banning Anti-War Protests
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), petitions the High Court of Justice, demanding an end to what they claim is an effective ban on political demonstrations during wartime, after police forcefully dispersed several protests against the government this past week. ACRI filed the on behalf of Itamar Greenberg, a student and leading Hadash activist arrested twice in the past weeks for partaking in demonstrations against the Iran war and the recently passed death penalty law.
Statement by Israeli International Law Scholars Concerning Israel’s New “Death Penalty for Terrorists” Law
(March 31, 2026)
1. The undersigned, scholars of international law in Israeli academic institutions, wish to express our outrage and clear condemnation of Israel’s new death penalty law. It is not only immoral and in violation of the most basic dictates of public conscience, but is also unlawful both in terms of domestic constitutional law and Israel’s obligations under international law.
2. Israel is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights from 1966. Under the Covenant it is prohibited to reintroduce the death penalty once abolished – a prohibition which includes, according to the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 36 (2018), a ban on extending the list of crimes to which the death penalty applies or relaxing associated procedural safeguards, even for states that have not formally abolished the death penalty. As long as the death penalty is applicable, legal proceedings relating to its imposition must meet all due process safeguards, including the right to seek commutation of the death sentence. The right to commutation is also guaranteed in the Fourth Geneva Convention from 1949. Furthermore, under the Covenant, States must act towards abolition of the death penalty, and in no case may the death penalty be imposed in a discriminatory manner.
Four Arrested in Protest at Knesset Against Death Penalty Law for Palestinians, Petitions to Supreme Court
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) filed a petition with the Supreme Court demanding the repeal of the “Death Penalty for Terrorists Law”, minutes after it passed its second and third readings in the Knesset. On Tuesday morning, Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI), HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual, Physicians for Human Rights and Gisha, together with Hadash-Ta’al MKs Aida Touma-Sliman, Ayman Odeh, and Ahmed Tibi, filed a second urgent petition to the Israeli Supreme Court, demanding that the “Death Penalty for Terrorists Law” be declared null and void. The petitioners argue that the law represents a complete negation of the right to life and imposes cruel and inhuman punishment.
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.
Trump Demeans Himself as He Attacks the Supreme Court
President Trump owes the Supreme Court an apology—to the individual Justices he smeared on Friday and the institution itself. Mr. Trump doubtless won’t offer one, but his rant in response to his tariff defeat at the Court was arguably the worst moment of his Presidency.
Trump Stuns Governors With Foul-Mouthed Rant at SCOTUS
“President Trump became enraged after learning of the Supreme Court’s ruling during the Governors’ breakfast,” Senior White House Correspondent Kristen Holmes wrote on X. “He at one point ranted against the decision and the court, saying ‘these f–king courts, ’ a source familiar with the matter told me.”
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision came down about 30 minutes into the annual governors’ breakfast on Friday morning.
Trump’s Attack on the Supreme Court Was Unhinged Even for Him
Perhaps, at next week’s State of the Union address, he’ll blame the actual Phantom of the Opera.
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.
Most Americans approve of the Supreme Court striking down Trump‘s tariffs
(February 20, 2026)
Most Americans (60%) strongly or somewhat approve of the U.S. Supreme Court striking down many tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump, a new YouGov poll conducted hours after the decision finds.
Only 23% of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court‘s decision. Almost all Democrats approve of it (88%), as do 63% of Independents. Republicans are more likely to disapprove than approve of the ruling, but a large minority (30%) of Republicans approve, compared to 47% of Republicans who disapprove.
Fox News Poll: Trump’s tariffs faced broad disapproval even before Supreme Court ruling
(February 20, 2026)
Even before the Supreme Court handed a blow to President Donald Trump‘s sweeping trade policy, Americans were already voicing strong disapproval in national polling of his handling of tariffs.
A Fox News survey conducted between Jan. 23 and 26 found 63% of registered voters disapprove of Trump’s handling of tariffs, while 37% approve, a 26-point deficit that ranks trade among his weakest-performing issues.
LEARNING RESOURCES, INC., ET AL . v . TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL .
THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II–A–1:
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution specifies that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” The Framers recognized the unique importance of this taxing power—a power which “very clear[ly]” includes the power to impose tariffs. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 201. And they gave Congress “alone . . . access to the pockets of the people.” The Federalist No. 48, p.310 (J. Madison). The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch. See Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 515.
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 rejects Trump’s tariffs as illegal import taxes
The 6-3 decision deals Trump his most significant defeat at the Supreme Court.
Last year, the justices issued temporary orders to block several of his initiatives, but Friday’s ruling is the first to hold that the president overstepped his legal authority.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for the court, said Congress has the power to impose taxes and tariffs, and lawmakers did not do so in an emergency law that does not mention tariffs.
Palestine Action ban ruled unlawful but group remains proscribed for now
The proscription made membership of or support for Palestine Action illegal, and more than 2,000 people have been arrested at demonstrations in the months since it came into force.
Some 694 of the protesters have been charged with allegedly showing support for the group, which can lead to up to six months in jail.
UK Palestine Action ban ruled unlawful, in humiliating blow for ministers
(February 13, 2026)
The home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, was urged to respect the court’s decision after the three judges said the ban, introduced by her predecessor Yvette Cooper, impinged on the right to protest and should be quashed.
However, the fate of more than 2,500 people, arrested for supporting Palestine Action since proscription, remained uncertain after Mahmood said she would appeal against the ban.
Additionally, the three judges, led by the president of the king’s bench division, Dame Victoria Sharp, said the banning order would not be quashed until both sides had been allowed to make representations.
Warum der Staat potentiell jedes Verbrechen ungestraft begehen kann
(Februar 21, 2020)
Wir haben bereits dargelegt, warum es in Deutschland keine unabhängige Justiz und damit keine vollständige Gewaltenteilung gibt – weil das Grundgesetz den Staat nicht ausdrücklich dazu zwingt. Das Grundgesetz schreibt dem Staat lediglich die Unabhängigkeit der Richter vor, nicht die der Justiz insgesamt. Daraus interpretiert der Staat für sich das Recht, die Staatsanwaltschaften bzw Ankläger der Exekutive anzugliedern.
Auf Bundesebene heißt das konkret: der Generalbundesanwalt und seine Behörde (allgemein Bundesanwaltschaft) unterstehen dem Justizminister. Daraus schlussfolgert, dass nach eventuellen Staatsverbrechen und / oder Verfassungsbrüchen durch ihre eigenen Organe – Kanzleramt, Ministerien, Behörden, Militär, Geheimdienste, etc, – die Regierung gegen sich selbst ermitteln müsste.
Zieht also die Bundesanwaltschaft bzw der Generalbundesanwalt ein Verfahren an sich, zieht es die Regierung an sich.
Verbleibt noch die Möglichkeit, dass das Parlament Untersuchungsausschüsse einsetzt, dass durch diese die betreffenden Staatsverbrechen aufgeklärt und dann öffentlich bekannt werden, dem folgend durch Wahlen eine Änderung der parlamentarischen Mehrheiten erfolgt, dann eine Neuwahl des Kanzlers / der Kanzlerin durch das Parlament, dann durch den Kanzler / die Kanzlerin eine Ernennung eines neuen Justizministers erfolgt (Minister / Ministerinnen werden nicht gewählt), dann durch den Justizminister / die Justizministerin eine Ernennung eines neuen Generalbundesanwalts oder eine Anweisung an den amtierenden Generalbundesanwalt erfolgt Ermittlungen gegen die damaligen oder immer noch amtierenden staatlichen Funktionäre bzw Stellen aufzunehmen und dass dieser dann der Anweisung des vorgesetzten Justizministers folgt. Wobei dann ggf die Ermittlungen durch die Regierungsbehörden (Geheimdienste, Bundeskriminalamt) erfolgen müsste, gegen die ermittelt wird.
The legal fight to open Gaza to foreign press has failed. It’s time to change course
The FPA — which represents roughly 400 foreign journalists based in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories — first appealed to the Supreme Court in Dec. 2023, and again in early 2024 after its first appeal was rejected. The court has since granted the state no fewer than 10 extensions to submit its response, effectively allowing the government to sidestep the issue altogether.
This time, the court’s patience with the state appeared to have run out. Justice Ruth Ronnen pressed state representatives to clarify what concrete changes on the ground would be required for the ban on foreign media access to be rescinded. “You can no longer say it’s the same risk,” she said, referring to the ceasefire that had been in place for over three months. “You must explain what else must take place for journalists’ entry to be permitted. It’s not enough to claim security concerns without explaining them.”
Nadav replied that he could provide further details only in a closed-door session — a request the court accepted, while denying Gilad Shaer, the attorney representing the FPA, access to the information presented to them in secret. After the closed session, the court once again declined to issue a ruling, instead instructing the state to submit another update within two months.