The State Department announced its intention to revoke the visas of five foreign individuals who have allegedly censored Americans.
As ICE sweeps in Minneapolis have drawn wide attention, a little-noticed immigration case playing out in a New York federal court has significant implications for America’s relationship with Britain and the ongoing debate over global censorship.
Fortune 500 companies are waking up and understanding what time it is. It’s time for businesses to get back to business.
For years, corporate America has fallen all over itself to be applauded by activists like the Human Rights Campaign, falsely believing HRC’s approval meant they were doing something right and good for business. This year, hundreds of companies, realizing they’ve been led astray, marched the other way.
Colorado legislators support requiring courts to consider whether parents embrace a child’s ‘gender identity’ in determining custody.
Colorado’s Democrat state legislators want to force transgenderism on parents, requiring them to affirm their child’s “gender identity” or risk losing custody.
New evidence shows that the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action is not a setback; instead, it facilitates improved outcomes for all.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), which banned affirmative action in college admissions, many experts, university officials, civil rights advocates, and government leaders warned about sharp declines in black and Hispanic enrollment. Yet a new report suggests that these predictions were overly pessimistic and failed to reflect the full scope of the situation.
Parents have been systematically turned away from the few venues they once had to steer Department of Defense Education Activity schools.
One of the few silver linings of the pandemic era was a parental awakening as they got a closer look at their children’s schoolwork. Booming attendance and barnburner speeches dotted school board meetings across the country. Parents started electing new members to focus on core subjects over social engineering. It was a newly informed citizenry in action. The school board system, though imperfect, is where parents and taxpayers can shape public education. Unfortunately, active-duty military families don’t have that option.
In a game for the ages, the U.S. men’s national hockey team defeated Canada in the 2026 Winter Olympics championship on Sunday. The victory came on the 46th anniversary of the famous 1980 Miracle on Ice, which was the last year the American men’s team won gold.
The CIA’s commitment to advancing leftist activism appears to span at least three presidential administrations beginning in 2015.
Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe ordered the retraction of 19 intelligence products following an independent review that found the documents failed to meet regulatory standards of tradecraft and quality, the agency announced Friday.
Our discussion, in media and in law, has been about Trump’s excesses and boundary-crossing. A better starting place would be the laziness and uselessness of the Article I branch.
To discuss the decision on tariffs, start with chronic illness. The human barnacle named Sen. Patty Murray berated Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in 2025 for cutting some research grants that Congress had funded, and he asked her in response what she had done about the crisis in American chronic illness. Ever. In her decades in Congress.
The U.S. Supreme Court may have ruled against President Trump’s use of an emergency economics law to impose tariffs on foreign countries, but that doesn’t mean the president is left without other measures he can pursue to implement them.
‘As they interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China. That approach does not make much sense’
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump’s tariffs under an emergency act are unlawful, a conclusion Justice Brett Kavanaugh said “does not make much sense” in his dissent.
Trump declared two national emergencies in early 2025, one addressing drug trafficking and the other trade imbalances with other countries — like China — that have harmed Americans. As a result, Trump imposed tariffs on several nations, including China, Canada and Mexico.
The Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Solutions Inc., that the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”
But Kavanaugh, dissenting alongside Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, tore into the ruling.
Kavanaugh argued that IEEPA gives Trump broad authority to regulate international economic transactions during declared national emergencies, including the “importation” of foreign goods.
As Kavanaugh pointed out, “The sole legal question here is whether, under IEEPA, tariffs are a means to ‘regulate … importation.’ Statutory text, history, and precedent demonstrate that the answer is clearly yes: Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation.”
But it apparently was not “clear” to the majority.
Kavanaugh referenced historical precedent to back up his opinion, noting that President Richard Nixon imposed a 10 percent tariff on most foreign imports in 1971 under the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), which authorized the president to “regulate … importation.” Such tariffs were upheld under that framing, which is the same language found in the IEEPA.
In creating IEEPA, as Kavanaugh wrote, Congress divided TWEA “into two separate statutes,” though “Congress retained that same ‘regulate … importation’ language in both laws — in TWEA for wartime and in IEEPA for peacetime national emergencies. In doing so, Members of Congress were plainly aware — after all, how could they not be — that the ‘regulate … importation’ language had recently been invoked by the President and interpreted by the courts to encompass tariffs.”
“If Congress wanted to exclude tariffs from IEEPA’s scope, why would it enact the exact statutory language from TWEA that had just been invoked by the President and interpreted by the courts to cover tariffs? Neither the plaintiffs nor the Court today offers a good answer to that question. Understandably so, because there is no good answer,” he continued.
Kavanaugh also noted that one year before IEEPA was enacted, the Supreme Court “unanimously ruled that a similarly worded statute authorizing the President to ‘adjust the imports’ permitted President Ford to impose monetary exactions on foreign oil imports.”
Kavanaugh also accused the majority of trying “to dodge the force of the Nixon tariffs by observing that one appeals court’s interpretation of ‘regulate … importation’ to uphold President Nixon’s tariffs does not suffice to describe that interpretation as ‘well-settled’ when IEEPA was enacted in 1977. Fair enough.”
“But that is not the right question,” Kavanaugh continues. “The question is what Members of Congress and the public would have understood ‘regulate … importation’ to mean when Congress enacted IEEPA in 1977. Given the significant and well-known Nixon tariffs, it is entirely implausible to think that Congress’s 1977 re-enactment of the phrase ‘regulate … importation’ in IEEPA was somehow meant or understood to exclude tariffs.”
“Any citizens or Members of Congress in 1977 who somehow thought that the ‘regulate … importation’ language in IEEPA excluded tariffs would have had their heads in the sand,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Kavanaugh also questioned the rationality of the majority trying to limit the president’s authority while simultaneously allowing him a broader authority.
“The plaintiffs and the Court acknowledge that IEEPA authorizes the President to impose quotas or embargoes on foreign imports — meaning that a President could completely block some or all imports. But they say that IEEPA does not authorize the President to employ the lesser power of tariffs, which simply condition imports on a payment.”
“As they interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China. That approach does not make much sense,” he wrote.
Kavanaugh ended his opinion by essentially arguing that the majority concluded President Trump merely “checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs” — even though IEEPA, under his interpretation, would have been sufficient.
“Although I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case — albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require. “
Republicans cannot use lawsuits as their only strategy to stop gerrymandering. They need be in campaign mode, knocking doors, and getting people to the polls if and when the election occurs.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) and National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) have filed a lawsuit to try to stop Virginia Democrats’ gerrymandering power-grab referendum.
On Thursday, a judge temporarily blocked the Democrat effort, but with a state Supreme Court case allowing the referendum to move forward, Republicans need to be prepared with a ground game to beat the referendum at the ballot box.
Reps. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., and Ben Cline, R-Va., both representing western Virginia districts, joined the RNC / NRCC action, and the RNC filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction, as well as a hearing for a temporary restraining order which they have asked to take place before March 2, just before early voting would begin for the April 21 election.
The joint lawsuit, filed in Tazewell County, challenges the wording of the Democrats’ referendum, which claims to “restore fairness in the upcoming elections,” while weaving all but one congressional district, somehow, into deep blue parts of the commonwealth in order to change a 6 Democrat-5 Republican delegation to a 10 Democrat-1 Republican one.
As RNC chairman Joe Gruters said in a press release announcing the lawsuit, “Despite nearly half of Virginians supporting President Trump, Abigail Spanberger and Democrats are working to silence voters and lock in permanent political control.”
The lawsuit also argues the initiative is unconstitutional and a violation of state law. Some of that was affirmed in the decision to another Tazewell County case earlier this month, but the Virginia Supreme Court allowed the election to go forward while opening the possibility to hear challenges afterward.
Newly minted Republican Party of Virginia (VAGOP) chair Jeff Ryer told The Federalist he recognizes the massive hurdles of a post-vote challenge at the Supreme Court, stating, “It’s not impossible, but I do think that they made their decision based in the hopes that they would not have to make a decision.”
Clara Belle Wheeler, former vice chair of the Virginia State Board of Elections, told The Federalist that legal action cannot be trusted on its own to stop the Democrat power grab.
“We’re going to have this election. We’re going to have this referendum. It’s on the ballot, and when the alleged Republicans were running the Department of Elections, set up this April 21 election,” she said.
She added that there is almost no world in which the high court decides to overturn the results of an election after it has taken place, regardless of if the election should have legally happened to begin with.
“I can only hope that [Republicans] have got enough attorneys up their sleeve that they’ve got something that they’re going to pull out,” she continued. “But so far, nobody knows what it is, and now the Supreme Court has said, ‘Go away, little girl, we’re not thinking about this, Virginia. No, there is not a Santa Claus. No, Virginia, there is not a Supreme Court, and we don’t give a whip about the law. We’re just worried about what our Democrat sponsors are telling us to do.'”
One of the clearest signs of that is the Supreme Court’s opinion in the first place, because it was the very same Supreme Court that drew and decided the current maps during regular, census-driven redistricting a couple years ago. They appear more than willing to do the Democrats’ bidding, even if it means overturning their own decisions.
“The bottom line is the Republican Party of Virginia and the Republican leadership in the General Assembly looked all over Virginia,” Wheeler said. “Most of the judiciary in Virginia are Democrats.” That seems to be the reason the lawsuits are being filed in Tazewell County, a place in southwest Virginia that voted nearly 84 percent for Trump.
“It’s disappointing to see the Supreme Court just really going along with what the what, what the Democrats have proposed,” Ryer said. “But in a state where justices are chosen by members of the legislature, you can’t be entirely shocked when the justices defer to the legislature.”
However, even if Republican legal efforts are successful, they need an intense get-out-the-vote effort, including door-knocking, educational efforts, rallying the base, running ads, and more, flexing the infrastructure they should already have in the commonwealth. After all, it is not just about Virginia. The amount of seats at stake are enough to strip Republicans of a U.S. House majority ahead of a midterm election that is expected to go very poorly for Republicans.
Republicans need to be prepared with a grassroots campaign effort, and it appears there is not yet national Republican interest in funding it.
As The Federalist reported, some in Virginia have not seen any meaningful opposition arise aside from lawsuits. Some are not even aware the referendum is happening, while Democrats plan on pumping millions, led by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., into it to win. National Democrats, in other words, are serious about winning the election, while Republicans seem to be ignoring the fact that it will likely take place, and that they will likely lose any challenge made afterword.
Ryer said that the RNC has been “nothing but pleasant, and cooperative, and have listened, et cetera, but you know, they have processes and procedures too. We have to respect those.”
Regarding funding to combat the millions Democrats are spending to win, he said he has heard “very little” from the national party, stating, “I don’t know why they haven’t up to this point. Obviously, I’m optimistic we will be in the future, and it certainly is not for short of asking on our part. They’re going to evaluate, I’m sure, and make the determination on their own.”
“We’re certainly asking for the kind of resources necessary. I know that whatever is free of charge we will get, but whatever isn’t, we will have to have a discussion,” he added.
It is a story somewhat familiar to Virginians who might remember the 2014 U.S. Senate election where Republican candidate Ed Gillespie came within a percentage point of unseating Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va. While some blamed Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis’ 2.34 percent take of the electorate, others noticed a lack of interest from the RNC. Ryer said the money was tied up in other races at the time, and no one knew Virginia would be that close.
This time, money from Jeffries and others means “the other side is going to have higher visibility,” Ryer said, as they are able to afford television ads that will give them a “leg up.”
“I know that on our side, just about everybody is talking to [the RNC] to try to get at least some relief from the team Jeffries ads, but we’ll see,” he said. “It’s not like they’ve been an absent player. They haven’t. It’s just that nobody is matching what Democrats are doing.”
As for the VAGOP, Ryer said they are focusing on awareness and basic grassroots outreach, including organizing through local parties to focus on known voters and find out “what it is to take them to get to vote in an April election” — an election time that Virginians have never seen before.
“That would consist of voter contact items: personal door-to door, phones, text messaging of friends — things that campaigns used to do before the advent of technology and vendors who found a way to make it cheaper for those campaigns. We’re going to achieve the same result, but without the same level of expenditure,” he said. “That doesn’t mean we’re ruling out money … we are asking for it and looking for it and hoping that the resources are there to put us up on television, but we have to be pretty discerning along the way.”
Lawsuits are all well and good, and should be pursued vigorously, but Republicans cannot use it as their only strategy. They need to remember what happened in 2020 where, no matter the veracity of a lawsuit, they were systematically thrown out. Even a neutral judge is averse to getting into election disputes, but judges across the board are almost never neutral — and they will often fabricate a win for Democrats, no matter the cost.
‘[The International Emergency Economic Powers Act] IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,’ the court ruled.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that President Trump’s imposition of tariffs under an emergency economics law is unlawful. The decision was 6-3, with Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissenting.
“[The International Emergency Economic Powers Act] IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” the court ruled.
The ruling pertains to a pair of consolidated cases known as Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Solutions, Inc., which center around legal challenges to Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose tariffs on goods from foreign countries making their way into the United States. As The Federalist previously described, the president did so “in response to existing ‘unfair trade practices’ that lead to trade deficits, as well as to punish countries like China for failing to ‘blunt the sustained influx of synthetic opioids, including fentanyl, flowing from the [People’s Republic of China] to the United States.'”
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that Trump’s reliance on the words “regulate” and “importation” to justify his tariffs under IEEPA “cannot bear such weight.”
“Absent from [IEEPA’s] lengthy list of powers is any mention of tariffs or duties. That omission is notable in light of the significant but specific powers Congress did go to the trouble of naming,” Roberts wrote. “It stands to reason that had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly — as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.”
The chief justice went on to argue that the administration’s reliance on the phrase “regulate … importation” “does not fill” such a “void,” and asserted that the court is “therefore skeptical that in IEEPA — and IEEPA alone — Congress hid a delegation of its birth-right power to tax within the quotidian power to ‘regulate.'”
“We do not attempt to set forth the metes and bounds of the President’s authority to ‘regulate … importation’ under IEEPA. That ‘interpretive question’ is ‘not at issue’ in this case, and any answer would be ‘plain dicta,'” Roberts wrote. “Our task today is to decide only whether the power to ‘regulate … importation,’ as granted to the President in IEEPA, embraces the power to impose tariffs. It does not.”
Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett each filed concurrences. Associate Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson each filed opinions concurring “in part and concurring in the judgement,” with Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Jackson also joining the former’s opinion.
Writing for the principal dissent, Kavanaugh strongly disagreed with the majority’s decision and argued that “[s]tatutory text, history, and precedent demonstrate that the answer” to the “sole legal question” of whether Trump can impose tariffs under IEEPA “is clearly yes.” He noted that, “Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation.”
“The plaintiffs argue and the Court concludes that the President lacks authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs. I disagree. In accord with Judge Taranto’s careful and persuasive opinion in the Federal Circuit, I would conclude that the President’s power under IEEPA to ‘regulate … importation’ encompasses tariffs,” Kavanaugh wrote. “As a matter of ordinary meaning, including dictionary definitions and historical usage, the broad power to ‘regulate … importation’ includes the traditional and common means to do so — in particular, quotas, embargoes, and tariffs.”
Kavanaugh points out that even if today's mess of a ruling creates all sorts of chaos for previously imposed tariffs, Trump has many other options for imposing tariffs going forward. pic.twitter.com/Rdw2ab4o1G
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) February 20, 2026
Kavanaugh went on to blast the majority’s nonsensical argument that IEEPA “does not authorize the President to employ the lesser power of tariffs, which simply condition imports on a payment,” despite its acknowledgement that the statute “authorizes the President to impose quotas or embargoes on foreign imports — meaning that a President could completely block some or all imports.”
“As [plaintiffs and the court] interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China. That approach does not make much sense,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Properly read, IEEPA does not draw such an odd distinction between quotas and embargoes on the one hand and tariffs on the other. Rather, it empowers the President to regulate imports during national emergencies with the tools Presidents have traditionally and commonly used, including quotas, embargoes, and tariffs.”
Thomas also penned a separate dissent, in which he similarly argued that “In today’s cases, neither the statutory text nor the Constitution provide a basis for ruling against the President.”
