A little-noticed Supreme Court order may pave the way for a dramatic expansion of presidential authority—overturning a 90-year-old precedent and weakening the independence of key regulatory agencies. In the hands of a would-be autocrat, the Supreme Court decision has delivered a serious blow to the constitutional system.
In den Vereinigten Staaten haben die Journalisten Ezra Klein und Derek Thompson mit ihrem Buch „Abundance“ eine Kritik des gegenwärtigen amerikanischen Verwaltungsstaats vorgelegt. Während Elon Musks DOGE am Rückbau der Bundesverwaltung arbeitet, wollen die beiden Journalisten sie neu aufstellen. Sie werben dafür, linke Politik, konkret der Demokratischen Partei, auf den titelgebenden Überfluss auszurichten: mehr Wohnen, mehr Energie, mehr öffentliche Forschung. Schon weil wir in der Bundesrepublik ähnliche Probleme, aber keine vergleichbare Methodenkritik haben, lohnt ein Blick nach Übersee.
On Thursday, May 15, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in “the birthright citizenship case.” Instead of deciding on the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order (EO) banning birthright citizenship for certain classes of individuals, the Court is asked to decide whether lower courts exceeded their authority in placing a nation-wide injunction on the government’s order. But this doesn't make the decision any less significant.
Donald Trump’s return to the forefront of U.S. politics brings an urgent constitutional question back into focus: Can the American administrative state survive another presidency driven by executive absolutism? Recent developments before the Supreme Court, especially in Trump v. U. S., suggest that long-standing norms and legal safeguards are under siege. This post explores how a second Trump term might exploit structural vulnerabilities in U.S. public law, with consequences that extend far beyond American borders.
Donald Trump’s radicalized efforts to transform US constitutional democracy into personalized executive-centered rule have again generated a predictable avalanche of invocations of Carl Schmitt. Less predictably, recent political commentators have turned to one of Schmitt’s contemporary critics, the mid-century socialist jurist and political scientist, Ernst Fraenkel, claiming that his account of the Nazi “dual state,” in which rule-based normative and discretionary prerogative legal spheres uneasily coexisted, provides a useful template for making sense of Trump 2.0’s highly selective rendition of legal fidelity.
Seit dem Amtsantritt von Donald Trump als 47. Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika vergeht kaum eine Woche, in der wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen nicht attackiert werden. Die US-Regierung macht nun geltend, dass Harvard – und andere Universitäten – gegen Title VI des Civil Rights Acts verstießen, indem sie als „Brutstätten für Antisemitismus“ dienten. Das wirft allerlei verfassungsrechtliche Fragen auf.
The Trump tariffs have increased the average weighted U.S. tariff to 23% – a ten-fold increase from a year ago. Outside observers have been puzzled about how one person, even the U.S. president, has the power to single-handedly enact such sweeping changes to the U.S. and global economy. In fact, President Trump may not – and in my view, does not – have the power to impose most of his tariffs.
Hat der US Supreme Court genug von Donald Trump?
Is the Supreme Court of the United States Getting Fed up with Donald Trump?
In recent years, upcycling has seen a surge in popularity thanks to its positive impact on sustainability and the circular economy due to consumers’ increasing attention to the environment. As a result, individuals, artisans, and small companies have enthusiastically embraced the practice as a central part of their activities and a way to reduce waste. However, with fame often comes unwanted attention, and the growth of upcycling practices has led to various legal challenges against independent upcyclers based on the argument that their products violate intellectual property (IP) rights.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters