Today I had the honor of testifying at the U.S. Senate, where I discussed the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright.

It was great to meet so many new students at our orientation cookout yesterday. Congrats and welcome to all of our incoming first years!.

Thanks to @WSJopinion for sharing some of my thoughts on the President’s tariff authority.

RT @CathULaw: This past week, the Separation of Powers Institute (SPI) hosted its inaugural Separation of Powers Bootcamp at Catholic Law i….

Kicking off lectures this morning for @CUA_SPI’s first annual Separation of Powers Bootcamp! It was a pleasure to meet the students yesterday. Today we’re joined by an impressive group of lecturers from throughout the country.

The country is fortunate to have @ElliotGaiser at the helm at OLC—and to have Josh there as well. Brilliant and patriotic lawyers who will serve our nation well.

RT @EWess92: Fascinating read that may be relevant to last week's en banc argument in the Federal Circuit relating to the President's tarif….

Link with access to the essay:

Proud to have my essay on the President's IEEPA tariff authority receive a "highly recommended" from @lsolum

I feel so fortunate to have been Marshall’s colleague. He was incredibly kind, and his quick wit and humor were such a fun part of life here at CUA. He will be missed.

August ✏️ 🍎

I address these points (and more) in recent academic work here:

5th argument: “These tariffs violate the nondelegation doctrine.” ➡️ The NDD applies much less strictly in the foreign affairs context. It would be difficult to take SCOTUS seriously if, after just ruling this term that Congress can broadly delegate its domestic-tax power, SCOTUS.

4th argument: “Tariffs violate the major questions doctrine.” ➡️ The MQD has never been applied in the foreign affairs context. And as J. Kavanaugh recently explained, the logical underpinnings of the MQD counsel against extending it to that context. Moreover, the claim to tariff.

3rd argument: “For 50 years, IEEPA has never been interpreted to include tariff power.” ➡️ This is just playing with words. 50 years ago, materially IDENTICAL statutory language was interpreted to include tariff power. Thus, for 50 years, the President’s tariff power under the.

2nd argument: “IEEPA doesn’t use the word ‘tariff.’” ➡️ Congress didn’t need to use that magic word. Tariffs are a well understood means of “regulating importation.” If a statute empowered POTUS to “regulate sports,” and he regulated baseball, it would be silly to argue he.

1st argument: “Because IEEPA doesn’t use the word ‘tax,’ it doesn’t empower POTUS to impose tariffs.” ➡️ This conflates tariffs with taxes. Since the Founding, tariffs have been recognized as a means of regulating commerce—not just as a means of taxation. By empowering POTUS to.

The Fed. Circuit heard argument today on the President’s IEEPA tariff authority. In academic work, I’ve explained how IEEPA gives the President tariff authority. Here is a quick🧵 responding to 5 arguments to the contrary.

Write with the confidence of that 11th or 12th scholar who found yet another step in Chevron.