(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.
(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.
(video)
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.“
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
(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 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.
(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…
(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
(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 politicalâquestion doctrine [1] [2].
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 donât 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.“
The Supreme Court just struck down a Louisiana map that fairly represents Black voters, gutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The decision was the latest, and presumably final, chapter in a long-running dispute arising from Louisianaâs 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 â who comprise roughly one-third of the stateâs population â 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 Wednesdayâs opinion. It was filed by a group of ânon-African Americanâ voters who contended that the 2024 map violated the Constitutionâs equal protection clause by sorting voters based on race.
(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 phoneâs location can be tracked across time and space by reviewing those logs.
Writing for a 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Robertsâ Carpenter opinion held that the police must get a warrant before reviewing seven or more days of CSLI for a personâs 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 youâd like to allow an app to use your location, youâre likely generating the kind of data at issue in Chatrie. Chatrie specifically involved data generated by a Google service called Location History. In Googleâs case, this location information was created by combining information from cell towers but also on GPS, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth signals.
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 politicalâquestion doctrine [1] [2].
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 administrationâs attorney, Solicitor General D. John Sauer.
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.
(March 31, 2026)
1. The undersigned, scholars of international law in Israeli academic institutions, wish to express our outrage and clear condemnation of Israelâs 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 Israelâs 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 â a prohibition which includes, according to the Human Rights Committeeâs 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.
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) filed a petition with the Supreme Court demanding the repeal of the âDeath Penalty for Terrorists Lawâ, minutes after it passed its second and third readings in the Knesset. On Tuesday morning, Adalah â 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-Taâal MKs Aida Touma-Sliman, Ayman Odeh, and Ahmed Tibi, filed a second urgent petition to the Israeli Supreme Court, demanding that the âDeath Penalty for Terrorists Lawâ 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.