Clear Statements is a recurring series by Abbe R. Gluck on civil litigation and the modern regulatory and statutory state.

The most basic principle of interpreting statutes is that courts must follow the plain language of the law, UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky writes.

Just a week after the Supreme Court demolished the cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s tariff regime, questions are swirling about the legal foundation of his replacement tariffs.

Few recent appeals have featured the tangential baggage of the combined cases that challenge Trump’s tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) — Learning Resources Inc.

So much for the notion that the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 majority of justices appointed by Republican presidents, was ...

The ruling strikes down most of the Trump administration’s current tariffs, with more limited options to replace them.

New Trump tariffs will remain in force despite the ruling, leaving refund questions unresolved and consumer prices uncertain.

Chief Justice Roberts applied the major questions doctrine, finding IEEPA lacks clear tariff authority and that revenue-raising belongs to Congress under the Constitution. Section 122 of the 1974 ...

Attorneys for the Trump administration even admitted that Section 122 can't be applied to address trade deficits. Trump is ...

In last night’s State of the Union address, President Donald Trump reaffirmed his commitment to using tariffs as a ...

That’s why President Trump isn’t much constrained, if at all, by the Supreme Court’s decision in this case. He still has leverage to negotiate deals, plus a clearer legal roadmap that may help to keep ...

Courtly Observations is a recurring series by Erwin Chemerinsky that focuses on what the Supreme Court’s decisions will mean ...