Articles for category: USA

The Constitution’s Midnight

Resolving some legal issues requires drawing a line through a gray area. Others can be resolved without having to draw a line, in recognition of an old insight: that there is a dawn and a dusk does not mean there is no noon or no midnight. Whether the President had power under the Constitution to attack Iran without congressional approval is an issue that falls in the latter category, within the Constitution’s midnight: wherever a line might be drawn in harder cases, this is not one of them.

3. Juli 2025

, , ,

U.S. Attacks on Iran

Israel and the United States attacked Iran in mid-June 2025 with the aim of ending its nuclear program. Iran counter-attacked. While some world leaders justified what Israel and the U.S. were doing, they did so in line with political deterrence theory, not the plain terms of the United Nations Charter. The lawful use of force in self-defense depends on an armed attack occurring. Concerns over nuclear weapons are to be resolved through treaties and negotiations. Honoring deterrence theory over the law is undermining the surest path to peace.

28. Juni 2025

, , , , , ,

The Return of Golden Shares and Global Politics

The Trump Administration just announced that the Japanese steel giant Nippon Steel has granted it a powerful “golden share” in U.S. Steel as a condition for its acquisition of this major US-American steel manufacturer. While the EU has largely constrained the use of such instruments under internal market law, the US now appears willing to deploy them as symbols of industrial revival and national strength. In its response to the increasing global (geo)economic competition, the EU and its member states should resist this trend and instead refine targeted FDI screening mechanisms to reconcile national security with internal market integrity.

26. Juni 2025

, , , , ,

From Erosion to Evisceration

Last week, the Supreme Court decided the case United States v. Skrmetti. As Ryan Thoreson has argued on this blog, the Court’s opinion rolls back existing understandings of sex discrimination in ways that will likely play out in future cases. Building on that insight, I examine how the Court narrows what counts as sex discrimination and strips the concept of stereotypes of its constitutional force. The most troubling aspects of the decision, however, appear in concurrences written by the ultraconservative members of the Court, which confine the reach of equal protection to formal legal classifications alone.

24. Juni 2025

, , , ,

The Erosion of Equal Protection

In United States v. Skrmetti, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 along ideological lines to uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, reaching that conclusion by construing equal protection jurisprudence in regressive ways. The majority reasoned that the law not only did not discriminate on the basis of sex, but did not discriminate on the basis of transgender status either. This post explains how the Skrmetti decision threatens to narrow the scope of constitutional equality protections in the United States, why it is dangerous for the equality claims of women and lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, and why it is likely to be so damaging for transgender people targeted by state and federal lawmakers in recent years.

23. Juni 2025

, , , , , ,

Neither Soil, Nor Blood, Nor Money

Russian oligarchs in Malta, descendants of Italians in South America, and Mexicans crossing into the US make unlikely characters for a common story. Yet over the first half of 2025, the ability of each of these groups to acquire or transmit citizenship status has been under scrutiny, signalling a shared preoccupation with ensuring that citizenship reflects “authentic” bonds and is not acquired instrumentally. In the struggle to define these “authentic” bonds each intervention strikes at the heart of some well-known citizenship tenet – the link to soil, blood, or money – without offering a clear alternative. The resulting void calls for a reflection on the principles that ought to inform rules on citizenship attribution.

20. Juni 2025

, , , ,

Troops in L.A.

This past weekend, President Donald Trump issued a presidential memorandum that federalized National Guard troops and deployed those troops alongside active-duty marines in response to protests against his aggressive immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles. While framed as a response to violence, the order also addresses peaceful protest. The decision to send military forces against civilians engaged in protected First Amendment activity marks a dangerous escalation, raising serious legal and constitutional concerns.

13. Juni 2025

, , , , ,

The Nondelegation Case Against Trump’s New Travel Ban

Donald Trump has imposed the second travel ban of his presidential history. Despite the enormous harm it is likely to cause, many assume there is no effective way to challenge it in court. The Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) – addressing Trump’s first-term “Muslim ban” – probably precludes challenges based on discriminatory intent. Nonetheless, there is an alternative path to striking down the new travel ban: the nondelegation doctrine. This doctrine sets limits to Congress’s delegation of legislative authority to the executive.

13. Juni 2025

, , , , , , ,

Power, Profit, and Washington’s Paradox

The Trump administration has been accused of corruptly placing private financial benefit above the public interest, most recently in President Trump’s acceptance of the gift of a Boeing 747 from Qatar for his use as Air Force 1, and invitations to dinner at a private club and to a private White House tour, offered as perks for those who invested substantial sums in his Stablecoin. Although, here, the President’s self-enrichment is blatant, more troubling are his policies aimed at dismantling safeguards against corruption at home and abroad. These reveal a deep contradiction in the warring goals of those currently governing in Washington; a contradiction that may eventually burst into the open.

12. Juni 2025

, , , ,

Using Immigration Court as a Trap

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has begun apprehending noncitizens at immigration court – where individuals appear to seek humanitarian relief or defend against deportation – immediately after the government moves to dismiss their case. Immigrants and their attorneys are increasingly reporting that ICE, in coordination with government lawyers, is detaining individuals as they exit court following such dismissals. Rather than providing a reprieve, dismissal is now being used to facilitate detention and potentially summary deportation, raising serious concerns about due process and adherence to governing statutes in the United States.

6. Juni 2025

, ,