Legal proceedings initiated by former President Donald Trump against the Pulitzer Prize Board have reached a significant milestone with a recent court decision in his favor.
Trump's defamation lawsuit challenges the 2018 Pulitzer Prizes awarded to the New York Times and the Washington Post over their reporting on alleged Russia collusion ahead of the 2016 election, which Trump asserts to be false, as Breitbart reports, with the president just notching a key win.
Trump persistently criticized the media coverage surrounding the Russia collusion narrative, especially after the Mueller Report, released in 2019, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge him. In 2019, Trump strongly stated that if the Pulitzer Prize was endorsing what he viewed as inaccurate political reporting, the Pulitzer Board should openly acknowledge it.
Despite the findings of the Mueller Report, the Pulitzer Board initially stood by its decision to honor the New York Times and the Washington Post. In response to this, Trump publicly requested in October 2021 that the Pulitzer Board retract the awards, which he characterized as "running cover for the biggest reporting failure in modern history."
In addition to asking for the revocation of the awards, Trump called on the two newspapers to return their prizes the following year. Trump asserted through social media that such actions would be the "honorable thing to do" should they recognize their reporting as flawed.
The lawsuit encountered several legal hurdles over time. A motion to dismiss Trump's case was presented but ultimately denied in July 2024. This denial allowed the lawsuit to proceed within the judicial system.
Further legal maneuvering by the defendants occurred when a motion was filed seeking to postpone the lawsuit until after Trump's current tenure in office. This attempt, aiming for a delay until 2028, was also recently denied, adding momentum to Trump's case against the Pulitzer Board.
Confident in his chances in the case, Trump shared his reaction to the legal victory on Truth Social, a new media platform he frequently uses. He expressed satisfaction with the appellate court's decision, which he considered a crucial win in the ongoing proceedings.
The rhetoric used by Trump in response to this legal breakthrough included a sharp critique of the original reporting outlets. He labeled the awarded stories from the New York Times and the Washington Post as "fake" and "malicious," referring to them as products of failed journalism.
Furthermore, Trump went on to challenge the legitimacy of the reports, upholding that the awarded publications should be returned. He contended that accepting accolades for what he described as "false" reporting could not be permitted in the United States.
This ongoing legal experience underscores the complex relationship between media organizations and high-profile political figures. The Pulitzer Board's awards have been central to this dispute, igniting fervent reactions from Trump amid broader discussions on media integrity and accountability.
As Trump continues to push forward with his legal challenge, the case's developments draw intense public and legal scrutiny. The court's rejection of motions for dismissal and delay marks a significant moment in Trump's efforts to hold the Pulitzer Board accountable.
Looking forward, the repercussions of this case may impact future awards and the credibility perceived by both media entities and award-granting bodies. Whether the litigation will lead to amendments in the evaluation process of media contributions remains to be seen.
The comprehensive analysis of this case and its impact reflects broader societal discussions on media dynamics and political considerations. As the saga unfolds, it is poised to become a substantial focal point in ongoing dialogues about the intersection of journalism and politics.
The White House is calling on Jill Biden to come clean to Congress about her husband's cognitive decline, as a delayed public reckoning with Joe Biden's shadow presidency continues.
“Frankly, the former first lady should certainly speak up about what she saw in regards to her husband and when she saw it, and what she knew,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
The former first lady is falling under fresh scrutiny after the publication of a new book on the cover-up of the former president's health decline, Original Sin by Alex Thompson and Jake Tapper.
Jill was defiant in a recent interview on The View, where, joined by her husband, she dismissed the recent glut of reporting about a cover-up as mere gossip.
"The people who wrote those books were not in the White House with us. And they didn’t see how hard Joe worked every single day,” she said.
But Jill can't escape the truth, Leavitt said, pointing out that Jill is on video "shielding" her husband from view.
“Jill Biden was certainly complicit in that cover-up. There are documentation, video evidence of her clearly shielding her husband away from the camera,” Leavitt said.
“They were just on ‘The View’ [May 8]. She was saying everything is fine. She’s still lying to the American people," the press secretary added.
The former first lady encouraged her husband to stick with his doomed 2024 re-election campaign even as Democrats and liberal media stopped supporting him following a disastrous debate performance against Donald Trump that led to the unraveling of the Biden presidency. Jill memorably praised her husband for having "answered every question."
Months later, Jill is still in denial.
“I did not create a cocoon around him," she told The View recently. "I mean, you saw him in the Oval Office, you saw him making speeches. He wasn’t hiding somewhere, I didn’t have him sequestered in some place. I mean that’s ridiculous!”
The Biden family only raised new questions after disclosing that the former president has advanced prostate cancer, despite no signs of the illness showing up in his White House medical checkups. House Republicans, led by Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-KY), have sent interview requests to Biden's former doctor, who certified last year that the then-president was fit for duty, as well as former top aides.
Comer has even suggested he might force Biden and his wife to appear on Capitol Hill.
The cover-up certainly ranks as among the greatest scandals in U.S. history, and the American people are entitled to transparency.
As Elon Musk exits the White House, observers are weighing the impact of his radical shakeup of the federal government.
While it remains to be seen whether billions of dollars in spending cuts will stick, Musk has already "made a difference" with DOGE, an MSNBC guest said.
Former Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida credited Musk with highlighting waste across the federal government.
“Look, I think that he did make a difference,” Curbelo said. "Obviously, he put a spotlight on government efficiency and on ways that, you know, the federal government could be improved. The way he did it was unpopular and controversial.”
As the public face of DOGE, Musk was constantly under attack during President Donald Trump's revolutionary first 100 days. DOGE's fast, aggressive, and sweeping approach to gutting the federal bureaucracy won praise from the right after years of unchecked government growth, while critics labeled the efforts as chaotic.
DOGE faced some of its most intense backlash over cuts to foreign aid. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was almost totally dismantled as Trump and Musk blasted the agency as a slush fund for questionable ideologically driven projects.
Trump bid farewell to Musk at the Oval Office on Friday, praising him for the "most sweeping and consequential government reform effort in generations."
DOGE did away with "$45 million for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion scholarships in Burma. In Burma," Trump said. "Does anyone know about Burma?"
"$42 million for social and behavioral change in Uganda," Trump continued.
While Musk has undoubtedly left an impact, initial conservative enthusiasm over DOGE's efforts has dissipated somewhat, with questions remaining about the permanence of the group's work. Musk himself recently directed rare public criticism at Trump over his "Big, Beautiful Bill," which the mogul suggested would raise deficits.
The White House this week asked Congress to codify $9 billion in DOGE recommendations, and Trump promised Friday to secure the remaining cuts, which currently total $157 billion.
“We’re totally committed to making the DOGE cuts permanent,” Trump said, adding the rest will "come later."
While some have speculated that DOGE will lose momentum without Musk in charge, both Musk and Trump have signaled that the work of downsizing government will continue apace, with Musk predicting savings of over $1 trillion down the line.
"I think the DOGE team is doing an incredible job," Musk said. "They're going to continue to be doing an incredible job."
President Donald Trump has decided to pause the Job Corps, the Great Society work training program that costs taxpayers $1.7 billion a year with little to show for it.
The move -- which was first reported by Fox News -- is sure to come as a shock in Washington D.C., where the Job Corps has long enjoyed broad support in Congress despite its flaws.
The Job Corps was established half a century ago as part of President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. Meant to lift poor young people into stable careers, the program has been failing its students for years -- and even putting them in harm's way.
A new analysis from the Labor Department found the average graduation rate is a meager 38%, and most of those who do complete their training are not moving up in life, with an average salary of $16,695 after graduation. Meanwhile, the average cost of training a Job Corps graduate is a steep $155,600.
There have also been issues with crime and drugs at the Job Corps centers, where many students live while they train.
There were 14,913 "serious incidents" in 2023 alone, including 372 sexual incidents, 1,764 violent acts, 1,167 breaches of safety of security, 2,702 instances of drug use, and 1,808 hospital visits. For context, the Job Corps enrolls 25,000 students.
Past investigations into the Job Corps have also found evidence of fraudulent reporting designed to inflate the success of its students. A CBS report from 2014 found that many job placements -- up to 85% -- were fake, and officials often failed to report criminal activity.
The program has also been on shaky financial footing for years, leading to "constant uncertainty for participants and administrators," a Department of Labor official told Fox News Digital.
The Trump administration's pause will take effect by June 30 at the 99 Job Corps centers operated by private contractors. The other 24 centers are managed by the Department of Agriculture.
"Job Corps was created to help young adults build a pathway to a better life through education, training, and community," Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer told Fox News Digital. "However, a startling number of serious incident reports and our in-depth fiscal analysis reveal the program is no longer achieving the intended outcomes that students deserve."
"We remain committed to ensuring all participants are supported through this transition and connected with the resources they need to succeed as we evaluate the program’s possibilities," she added.
There will be "an orderly transition" and current students will be connected with employment and training opportunities through state and local workforce partners, the administration said.
Trump cannot dissolve the Job Corps, which was established by law, without an act of Congress. Despite its financial, safety, and performance issues, the Job Corps has defenders in both parties who say it remains a lifeline of opportunity for disadvantaged young people.
Senate Appropriations chair Susan Collins, a Republican representing the largely rural state of Maine, said the two Job Corps centers in her state "have become important pillars of support for some of our most disadvantaged young adults."
Collins added, “That’s why at an Appropriations hearing just last week, I urged Secretary Chavez-DeRemer to resume enrollment at Maine’s two Job Corps centers and to reverse the Department’s proposed elimination of the Job Corps program."
A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's administration from abolishing a parole program for illegal immigrants on Wednesday, Fox News reported. However, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a similar ruling on the issue Friday, which could signal another future win for the administration on this issue.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts ruled against abolishing the parole program created under then-President Joe Biden. Migrants from Ukraine, Latin America, and Afghanistan, along with their immediate family members, were given two years to reside in the U.S.
The program stipulated that parolees and their families must have an American sponsor to participate. Some were also granted access to the program after working as translators for the American military.
Abolishing the program immediately suspended the application for hundreds of thousands of migrants wishing to renew their legal status or apply for work permits. Trump targeted this as one of the many ways to crack down on illegal immigration.
Talwani ruled against the Trump administration's assertion that it had broad powers over the immigration system. The judge, an Obama appointee, said that it was within the purview of the Department of Homeland Security and granted class-action status to the migrants.
According to Talwani, it's "not in the public interest to manufacture a circumstance in which hundreds of thousands of individuals will, over the course of several months, become unlawfully present in the country, such that these individuals cannot legally work in their communities or provide for themselves and their families," she wrote. The decision also extended to humanitarian parolee cases.
"Nor is it in the public interest for individuals who enlisted and are currently serving in the United States military to face family separation, particularly where some of these individuals joined the military in part to help their loved ones obtain lawful status," the judge added. One of the plaintiff attorneys, Anwen Hughes from Human Rights First, championed Talwani's decision in a statement.
"This ruling reaffirms what we have always known to be true: our government has a legal obligation to respect the rights of all humanitarian parole beneficiaries and the Americans who have welcomed them into their communities. We share the judge’s hope that the government will adhere to this order and immediately resume adjudicating our clients’ applications for relief," Hughes wrote.
This decision is in line with Talwani's ruling last month for migrants from Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Haiti. In that case, the judge found that status determinations must be made on an individual basis, though it has since been overturned.
According to NBC News, the Supreme Court overturned Talwani's earlier ruling because she was not authorized to decide such matters. The high court weighed in after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem filed an emergency petition, which was granted Friday.
This impacts some 532,000 migrants from Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Haiti who have now seen their status become immediately illegal. However, the affected individuals still have the option to apply for asylum, which many have already done.
Predictably, left-leaning Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the opinion. Jackson claimed that the court's short opinion ignored "the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending."
Justice Action Center attorney Karen Tumlin cited the same concerns. "I cannot overstate how devastating this is: The Supreme Court has allowed the Trump Administration to unleash widespread chaos, not just for our clients and class members, but for their families, their workplaces, and their communities," Tumlin claimed.
With Talwani's initial block already overturned, it seems any subsequent decision could meet the same fate. This is good news for the Trump administration and all who value a tighter, more secure immigration system.
President Donald Trump's administration has rescinded Moderna's $766 million bird flu vaccine grant over concerns about safety and efficacy, the UK Daily Mail reported. This comes as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. no longer recommends the COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant women and children.
In July 2024, Moderna received the first $176 million for the vaccine, with the remainder due in January, before Biden's departure from office. However, the HHS has withdrawn the funding as Kennedy explores longstanding concerns about the novel vaccine technology.
The grant was awarded under the administration of then-President Joe Biden. The government promised to fund its development and eventual purchase of the jab for the H5N1 bird flu, which has so far sickened 70 people and killed one.
Some experts see this virus as a new pandemic threat "unfolding in slow motion." Despite its name, the virus has been found in cattle and pigs and could become an increasing threat to humans.
Just this week, Moderna touted its findings in an initial study of the bird flu vaccine, involving around 300 people aged 18 and above in good health, The Washington Post reported. The company has pledged to continue developing the vaccine even with the shortfall.
"These clinical data in pandemic influenza underscore the critical role mRNA technology has played as a countermeasure to emerging health threats," Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a statement. HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon disagreed after a "rigorous review" of the vaccine.
This more cautious approach tracks with RFK Jr.'s renewed scrutiny of the technology and is a positive development for his supporters. "This is great news. RFK Jr. Cancelled $766 million award for Moderna mRNA vaccines. This is what I voted for," a user posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday.
This is great news. RFK Jr. Cancelled $766 million award for Moderna mRNA vaccines.
This is what I voted for. pic.twitter.com/jwFKUr1cFV
— Sally (@TalkWithSally) May 29, 2025
According to Fox News, Kennedy announced Tuesday that the HHS would no longer recommend the coronavirus jabs for pregnant women and children. "Last year, the Biden administration urged healthy children to get yet another COVID shot, despite the lack of any clinical data to support the repeat booster strategy in children," Kennedy said in a video.
"That ends today — it's common sense and it's good science," said NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, who appeared in the video along with FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary and Kennedy. Makary added that other countries have stopped recommending it for healthy children, as there's no evidence that it's even necessary.
"We're now one step closer to realizing President Trump's promise to make America healthy again," Kennedy said. This admission serves as vindication to Americans who voted for Trump because of this issue and Kennedy's promise.
It makes sense that the bird flu jab would face similar scrutiny, given Kennedy's role at HHS, especially considering the narrative being pushed for it. Just as the claims about COVID-19 were arguably overblown, the same may be true for this newest panic.
Kennedy's vaccine hesitancy was once a highly controversial position. Now with the Make America Healthy Again movement, Kennedy is addressing growing concerns over the new mRNA technology.
President Donald Trump isn't satisfied with a $15 million settlement offer from CBS over the network's alleged bias against him and in favor of his rival, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, on a "60 Minutes" broadcast before the election.
Trump rejected the settlement offer from CBS parent Paramount Global during arbitration of his $20 million lawsuit, saying he wanted $25 million and an apology for the bias.
The original lawsuit was for $10 billion, but after a judge said the suit had merit and didn't dismiss it, it went to $20 billion.
Trump's ire was raised after it came out that CBS selectively edited an interview answer by Harris, replacing it with another answer that sounded less like the original "word salad" answer.
Trump and others in the GOP called the action "interfering" in the 2024 election, and the outrage was on full blast.
CBS News still says it didn't do anything wrong, and wants Trump to take the settlement without admitting wrongdoing.
The "60 Minutes" executive editor and the president of CBS News resigned after the widespread backlash over the edits, which certainly belies the assertion that the show and network didn't do anything wrong.
Sure, executive producer Bill Owens is claiming he resigned because he was being denied editorial independence, but that is face-saving at best.
Trump is also threatening to file another suit against CBS over the most recent "60 Minutes" episode, in which Trump was compared to a mob boss.
Complicating matters even more is the ongoing attempt by Paramount Global to merge with Skydance Media.
The price tag of that merger is $8 billion, but Skydance understandably wants nothing to do with a merger until the lawsuit is resolved.
Trump has CBS over a barrel, and he's exactly as much of his pound of flesh as he possibly can while the getting is good.
According to the Daily Beast, Trump's lawyers said "mental anguish" was the reason $15 million wasn't enough, but it's really the apology that he wants even more than the money, it seems.
After so many legal situations where he seemed to be at the mercy of an unfriendly judge and prosecutor, Trump is taking full advantage of this one.
A federal court has struck down much of President Donald Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs in a ruling Wednesday, the Washington Examiner reported. The U.S. Court of International Trade determined that it is not within the president's powers, but the administration immediately appealed.
This court's decision immediately nullified the flat 10% rate Trump imposed on most imported goods on April 2. However, the 25% tariff on steel, aluminium, automobiles, and their components was left untouched as it was enacted under a different law.
Democrats were happy about the development as New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took to X, formerly Twitter, to rejoice. "BREAKING: We sued the Trump Administration over their ridiculous tariff policy — and we WON! A tariff is just a backdoor tax. New York is fighting to stop these tariffs and put money back in your pocket," Hochul said.
BREAKING: We sued the Trump Administration over their ridiculous tariff policy — and we WON!
A tariff is just a backdoor tax. New York is fighting to stop these tariffs and put money back in your pocket. https://t.co/jJtF61BuFM
— Governor Kathy Hochul (@GovKathyHochul) May 28, 2025
Wednesday's decision came from a three-judge panel including a Trump appointee, a Reagan appointee, and an Obama appointee. They examined the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 and whether it "delegates these powers to the President in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world," they wrote.
"The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder," the decision noted. Of course, the White House objected to such a standard that hinders the president's powers.
"Foreign countries’ nonreciprocal treatment of the United States has fueled America’s historic and persistent trade deficit. These deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute," White House spokesman Kush Desai said.
"It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency. President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness," Desai added.
The challenge came from New York, Arizona, and Oregon, which sued over the implementation of these tariffs. However, the administration was quick to appeal the decision.
The Trump administration filed an appeal on Wednesday evening, almost immediately after the judges' ruling, CNN reported. The subsequent reversal from the United States Court of Appeals allows Trump to continue to impose tariffs.
Trump had used emergency powers to push through the tariffs, and the appeal will allow that to continue for now. In the meantime, the administration and the states objecting will have to file court documents arguing their positions.
Despite the setback, Trump's lead trade adviser, Peter Navarro, is undeterred and said "all strategic options" will be employed. "We will hear, within the next day or two, at a minimum, from the United States Trade Representative on how we will respond to all of this," Navarro said.
"We will respond forcefully, and we think we have a very good case with respect to this. I can assure the American people that the Trump tariff agenda is alive, well, healthy, and will be implemented to protect you, to save your jobs and your factories and to stop shipping foreign wealth, our wealth, into foreign hands," Navarro said about the future of the tariffs.
Although this was undoubtedly a setback for the Trump administration, the push and pull is part of what keeps power in check on both sides. Trump has many more tricks up his sleeve when it comes to his innovative economic policies, and it's unlikely this will stop here.
A new watchdog report found that then-President Joe Biden may have been unaware of the details of at least eight environmental executive orders signed by autopen, Breitbart reported. This is significant given recent revelations about Biden's apparent cognitive impairment while in office.
The nonprofit Power the Future found "no evidence" that Biden was aware of the details of what was signed. Daniel Turner, the organization's founder and energy expert, said it was "troubling," considering most of Biden's actions were signed using an autopen.
Biden used this device to sign many of his documents in the waning days of his administration, a process which could presumably used by anyone. Turner believes this is a potential scandal, given the types of documents signed in this manner.
"These are not obscure bureaucratic memos; these were foundational shifts in American energy policy, yet not once did Joe Biden speak about them publicly," Turner noted. Because of the findings in the report, Turner sent a letter to the House and Senate Oversight Committees and several pertinent agencies.
Letters were sent to the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Justice, and others demanding an investigation. The letter to Republican House Oversight Chair James Comer makes the case that Congress needs to get involved.
The letter asserts there is "growing evidence that actions purportedly taken by the former president may not have been approved or signed by him," Power the Future said. Rather, it's possible they were signed by a "small coterie of advisers in his name without his knowledge or over his signature using an ‘autopen,'" the letter said.
"Congress deserves to know how or whether these executive actions were authorized, and whether the former President was aware of such orders before they were implemented by the federal bureaucracy. Were these actions taken on behalf of the president and purporting to execute his authority undertaken with the president’s knowledge and approval?" the letter continues.
"It appears incumbent upon Congress to inquire about all parties involved in these actions, who instructed them to do what, when," the letter urged. A review from the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project found a similar troubling result.
The conservative organization concluded that "every document we could find with Biden’s signature over the course of his presidency" used an autopen signature, except his announcement that he was withdrawing from his reelection bid. "Whoever controlled the autopen controlled the presidency," the Oversight Project said.
Power the Future's review noted that the eight executive actions "that fundamentally reshaped American energy policy" came with "no evidence" that Biden ever spoke publicly about them. "Not in a press conference. Not in a speech. Not even a video statement," it said.
The policies included the 2022 Defense Production Act Invocation, which pushed for the use of solar panels and heat pumps, utilizing Cold War-era emergency powers. There were others in 2021, including a sweeping edict to eliminate carbon-producing electricity by 2030 and to switch the federal government over to net-zero emissions by 2050.
Despite the significant impact these and other orders would have, Biden didn't speak of them. This has profound implications considering revelations in Jake Tapper's book Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again.
According to Fox News, Tapper admits that the cover-up of Biden's significant cognitive decline was "even worse than Watergate." If Biden was impaired and these orders were signed with an autopen, it calls into question the legality of all of it.
It was obvious that Biden was struggling mentally while Democrats and their media accomplices allegedly coordinated to hide that fact as the autopen continued to make law in the U.S. This is indeed an outrageous scandal for the ages if it's true.
It appears that some cabinet officials are forced to step in to make sure that President Donald Trump's orders are carried out, particularly in the area of international trade.
On Wednesday, a federal trade court prevented President Trump from using emergency powers legislation to impose massive tariffs on imports, as Breitbart News reported.
A three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade in New York issued the verdict following many complaints that claimed Trump had overstepped his bounds, made U.S. trade policy subject to his caprices, and caused economic anarchy.
“The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,” the court wrote, referring to the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
While the White House didn't immediately offer word to journalists about the next steps, it's expected that the Trump administration will appeal
The taxes, which are central to Trump's trade policies, are the subject of at least seven lawsuits that contest them.
There is some involvement by Congress for tariffs, but Trump claims he can take action due to a national emergency with the nation's trade deficits. The markets were sent into a tailspin when he levied tariffs on the majority of nations with which the United States trades.
The plaintiffs contended that tariffs cannot be authorized by the emergency powers law and that, even if they could, the trade deficit does not constitute a "unusual and extraordinary threat" that would trigger the emergency.
For the past half-century, the United States has maintained a trade deficit relative to its global trading partners.
In an attempt to address the United States' large and persistent trade deficits, Trump levied tariffs on the majority of the world's countries.
To counter the influx of illegal immigration and synthetic narcotics into the United States, he had previously imposed tariffs on goods from Mexico, Canada, and China.
His government maintains that the courts upheld Nixon's emergency tariff usage in 1971 and that Congress, and not the courts, has the authority to decide on the "political" matter of whether or not the president's justification for announcing an emergency is lawful.
Trump imposed tariffs that rattled international financial markets and caused analysts to make dire predictions for economic growth in the United States. But thus far, it seems the biggest economy in the world seems unaffected by the tariffs thus far.
V.O.S. Selections, a wine importer whose owner has was vocal about concern that his company might not make it through the tariffs, is one of several small businesses that have joined forces to launch the complaint.
Oregon was the leading state among the twelve that brought suit. "This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can't be made on the president's whim," Assistant Attorney General Dan Rayfield said.