Keep pulling the thread on Neal Katyal.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled 7-to-4 in favor of the plaintiffs in the VOS elections versus Donald Trump tariff case, finding the tariffs unconstitutional.
The majority opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the VOS elections case affirmed that imposing tariffs requires authorization from Congress and is not within the executive branch's power.
Neal Katyal argues that President Donald Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPA) for tariffs is invalid because the act requires an "unusual and extraordinary" threat, while the President's own executive order described the trade deficits as "persistent" for 50 years.
Neal Katyal states that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case in the upcoming fall term that challenges Section 2, the last remaining major provision of the Voting Rights Act.
Neal Katyal asserts that based on his reading of its legislative history, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPA) was never intended by Congress to grant the President the power to impose tariffs.
Neal Katyal claims that while the VOS elections tariff case was pending in the trial court, he was contacted by "every major hedge fund" seeking his views to inform their financial decisions.
The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan group, has calculated that the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration represent the largest tax increase on American consumers since 1993.
Neal Katyal predicts the federal government will appeal the D.C. Court of Appeals' tariff decision in VOS elections to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the contested tariffs could remain in place for a 45-day period to allow the government time to petition the U.S. Supreme Court.
Neal Katyal asserts that no previous U.S. President has ever unilaterally asserted the extraordinary power to impose tariffs in the manner that President Donald Trump has.
According to Neal Katyal, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently used the "major questions doctrine" to strike down initiatives by the Biden administration related to greenhouse gas regulations, student loan forgiveness, and COVID-19 eviction moratoriums.
In the case of Shelby County v. Holder, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, reversing a position it had taken four years earlier.