Trump's War RUNS into TROUBLE in Senate + SCOTUS Shock Move?!?! | It's Complicated

The Trump administration employed unique legal interpretations to avoid the War Powers Resolution's 60-day deadline for congressional authorization of military action. This involved declaring a 'two-week ceasefire' in Iran, which was then extended, and claiming that 'hostilities have terminated' to reset the clock. Simultaneously, ongoing military engagements, such as sinking Iranian boats and shooting down missiles, were labeled 'Project Freedom,' a 'separate and distinct project' from the 'wider Iran war' that was supposedly under ceasefire.

On May 1st, Trump sent a letter to Senator Grassley stating a two-week ceasefire ordered on April 7th had been extended and 'hostilities... have terminated.' Three days later, US forces sank six Iranian boats and shot down missiles, which Hegathth called 'Project Freedom,' distinct from the 'wider Iran war.'

The War Powers Resolution requires presidential notification within 48 hours and withdrawal of forces within 60 days if 'introduced into hostilities' without congressional authorization. However, presidents of both parties have historically interpreted 'hostilities' very narrowly to avoid triggering the 60-day clock. For example, the Obama administration argued that air power without 'boots on the ground' and without risk of casualties did not constitute 'hostilities.' The Trump administration, facing actual casualties, shifted to claiming hostilities had 'ceased' or were part of a 'separate' conflict.

Asha Rangapa notes that 'shenanigans have been going on well before Trump' with presidents interpreting 'hostilities' narrowly. President Obama's legal adviser, Harold Co, argued that air power without boots on the ground or risk of casualties did not involve 'hostilities' in Libya. The Trump administration, with 13 service members killed, cannot use this narrow definition and instead claims hostilities have 'ceased'.

The Supreme Court's 'Prize Cases' from the Civil War established the principle of presidential deference, allowing the president to declare the 'state of affairs' regarding war. In the context of the Civil War blockade, the Court reasoned that the existence of the blockade itself was evidence of a state of war, legitimizing Lincoln's actions without a congressional declaration. This precedent grants the president significant power to articulate whether the nation is at war, even if objective facts suggest otherwise, thereby impacting the application of the War Powers Resolution.

The 'Prize Cases' from the Civil War involved Lincoln instituting a naval blockade without congressional declaration of war. The Supreme Court ruled that 'it is up to the president to say whether we're at war,' and the blockade's existence was 'itself evidence that a state of war exists.'

The Supreme Court is once again reviewing access to Mifepristone, the abortion pill, after the Fifth Circuit attempted to ban it. This new case, filed by the state of Louisiana, argues that the FDA's approval was based on flawed data and that mail-order dispensing violates the Administrative Procedures Act, undermining state abortion bans. Justice Alito granted a temporary one-week stay, allowing continued access while the Court decides whether to uphold the Fifth Circuit's injunction.

The case is filed in Louisiana by the state, suing the FDA, arguing its approval of Mifepristone was 'based on flawed data' and mail dispensing 'violates the administrative procedures act.' Justice Alito granted a one-week stay, with a decision expected on May 11th.

The legal standing of the states in the Mifepristone case is a contentious point. The primary argument for standing is that the availability of Mifepristone increases Medicaid costs for states due to complications. Additionally, Louisiana argues that allowing access via telehealth and mail undermines its state laws banning abortion. These theories are considered 'aggressive' and could significantly broaden the scope of standing for states to challenge federal regulations.

Renato Mariotti states, 'the standing that the states have is like a pretty aggressive theory,' citing their argument that Mifepristone 'raises Medicaid costs for us.' Asha Rangapa adds that Louisiana also argues mail access 'undermines Louisiana's own laws' banning abortion.