After 17 years as the cornerstone of all federal greenhouse gas regulation, the EPA's 2009 Endangerment Finding — the scientific-legal determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health, upheld in Massachusetts v. EPA — was formally rescinded. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called it "the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history." Twenty-three states and dozens of cities filed in the D.C. Circuit to reverse it.
The Supreme Court's majority held that no president "enjoys inherent authority to impose tariffs during peacetime" and that Congress never delegated that power through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
Holding: The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. IEEPA's text never uses the word "tariffs." Unlike the Trading with the Enemy Act and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — statutes Congress wrote specifically to delegate tariff authority — IEEPA's broader language cannot be read to accomplish what Congress had to do expressly elsewhere. The "major questions doctrine" further bars such a consequential power from silence.
The ruling struck down two separate sets of tariffs: the "trafficking tariffs" on goods from China, Canada, and Mexico citing fentanyl flows, and the global "reciprocal tariffs" — initially imposed at 10% on most trading partners — justified by the administration as necessary to correct trade deficits treated as national security threats. Both fell to the same legal deficiency.
Justice Kavanaugh's dissent — which he joined despite being appointed by Trump — warned the ruling could expose the Treasury to more than $175 billion in refund liability for tariffs already collected, a figure the majority opinion declined to address. The administration immediately condemned the ruling as "deeply disappointing" and moved to replace the stricken tariffs with a new authority: § 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The dissenters argued Congress did delegate tariff power through IEEPA's broad "regulate" language, and that the majority's refund concern — over $175 billion potentially owed to importers — underscores the disruptive consequences of the ruling. "The Court today makes a decision that will reshape the global trade order," wrote Kavanaugh, "with consequences neither the Constitution's drafters nor Congress anticipated."
Source: SCOTUSblog · NPR · Foreign Policy
Within days of the IEEPA ruling, the administration imposed a new 10% global tariff under the 1974 Trade Act's Section 122 — and 24 states immediately filed to strike that down too
Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 grants the President emergency authority to impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days when the United States faces a "large and serious" balance-of-payments deficit. Trump announced a 10% global tariff under this authority on February 20, 2026 — the same day SCOTUS struck down the IEEPA tariffs — with plans to escalate to 15%.
The Trade Act of 1974 expressly grants emergency tariff authority to address balance-of-payments deficits. The U.S. runs persistent trade deficits with dozens of countries. The administration argues these constitute a "large and serious" imbalance triggering Section 122's 150-day emergency authority — enough time to negotiate new trade terms.
The 24-state coalition, filed by a coalition of Democratic attorneys general, argues Section 122's "balance-of-payments" language was designed for the Bretton Woods gold-standard era — when the U.S. dollar was pegged to gold and actual currency outflows created balance-of-payments crises. Under today's floating exchange rate regime, that crisis simply cannot exist in the same form.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for a unanimous Court: when a court of appeals reviews the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that an asylum seeker was not persecuted, the standard is substantial evidence — not de novo review
The case involved Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, his wife, and their minor child — a Salvadoran family who entered the United States without authorization in 2021 and claimed asylum based on a hitman's threats. The immigration judge found Urias-Orellana credible but determined the evidence did not establish persecution. The First Circuit agreed and denied asylum.
The Supreme Court's ruling settles a question that had produced inconsistent approaches across the circuits: how much deference do appellate courts owe to the BIA's factual determinations in asylum cases? The answer — substantial deference, with reversal only where the evidence compels a contrary conclusion — will make it harder for asylum seekers to overturn BIA denials at the appellate stage, streamlining the path to final removal orders.
Practitioners note the ruling's practical effect runs in the government's favor: by limiting the scope of appellate review, the Court made BIA denials more durable, reducing the ability of courts of appeals to substitute their factual judgments for the agency's. The unanimity of the decision — including the Court's three Democratic-appointed justices — reflects the strength of the statutory text argument under the INA.
Source: SCOTUSblog · Justia
The Supreme Court will hear argument on the Trump administration's termination of Temporary Protected Status for Syrian and Haitian nationals — the first time the Court has refused to immediately grant the administration's request to revoke TPS for a country
Syria's TPS designation had been renewed through multiple administrations. The Assad regime's fall in December 2024 created a new political reality, but the administration moved to terminate TPS before the humanitarian situation stabilized. A federal judge in New York blocked the termination. The Supreme Court granted cert to decide whether that block was proper.
Haiti's TPS designation covers nationals who have been in the United States since 2010 and 2023 — responding to successive earthquakes, political turmoil, and gang violence that made return impossible. The administration terminated TPS despite the ongoing crisis. A D.C. federal judge blocked it. The Supreme Court consolidated the case with Noem v. Doe for argument.
The combined cases will be argued in the last week of April 2026, with a decision expected by late June. At stake is the legal standard for reviewing TPS termination decisions — specifically, whether courts can examine the Secretary of Homeland Security's decision not to renew designation or whether it is committed to agency discretion, largely insulated from judicial review. The administration argues TPS decisions are unreviewable; the lower courts disagreed. This marks the first time the Supreme Court has not simply granted the administration's request to immediately revoke TPS status during litigation.
Source: SCOTUSblog · AP News · CNN
Acting Director Vought argued that "combined earnings" of the Federal Reserve — the statutory source of CFPB funding under Dodd-Frank — meant revenues minus interest expenses. Since the Fed was running a net loss, Vought claimed he was legally unable to request CFPB funds at all.
Two independent federal judges have now rejected the same legal theory — that the Federal Reserve's current losses make CFPB funding legally impossible — ordering the acting director to request funds
"Given that the Director has no authority to define or calculate the Federal Reserve's 'combined earnings,' Defendants' entire basis for not requesting funding from the Federal Reserve crumbles."
— Judge Edward Davila, N.D. Cal., March 13, 2026Congress designed the CFPB's independent funding structure deliberately — so that Congress itself could not defund the agency by cutting appropriations. Section 1017 of Dodd-Frank, codified at 12 U.S.C. § 5497, requires the CFPB Director to "request" from the Federal Reserve funds up to 12% of the Fed's "combined earnings." The statute does not give the Director discretion to define "combined earnings" contrary to its ordinary meaning.
The Supreme Court upheld this funding structure in CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association (2024), ruling it did not violate the Appropriations Clause. The administration's current strategy — redefining "combined earnings" to mean net income rather than gross revenue — was the only remaining avenue. Two courts have now slammed that door.
Source: ABA Banking Journal · Reuters
The 2009 Endangerment Finding was not just a policy statement — it was the statutory prerequisite for every greenhouse gas regulation the federal government has issued in 17 years. Without it, those regulations lose their legal basis.
The EPA's final rule rescinding the 2009 Endangerment Finding concludes that the agency lacks authority under Clean Air Act Section 202(a) to prescribe GHG emission standards based on climate change concerns. The EPA simultaneously repealed all GHG emission standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles from model years 2012–2027.
Administrator Zeldin characterized the action as correcting an overreach by the Obama EPA, arguing the original 2009 finding misread the statutory phrase "endanger public health or welfare" to include global atmospheric effects rather than direct, localized air quality harm.
New York AG Letitia James leads a coalition of 23 states, 10 cities, and 5 counties — all Democratic-led — in petitioning the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to vacate the rescission. Their central argument: the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA — which required the agency to make the endangerment determination — cannot be overridden by EPA's own reinterpretation of that mandate.
Environmental groups have filed separately, creating parallel tracks that the D.C. Circuit is expected to consolidate. The challenge sets up what experts describe as a near-certain journey to the Supreme Court.
Source: Reuters · CNN · Kirkland & Ellis
One of the most aggressive SEC crypto enforcement eras officially ended this month: a record complaint dropped without a payment; a second resolved for a fraction of the alleged harm. The agency's "regulation by enforcement" posture has reversed.
The SEC alleged Sun and his companies (Tron Foundation, BitTorrent) orchestrated wash trading to artificially inflate TRX trading volume and paid celebrity endorsers without disclosure. The complaint, filed March 2023, sought disgorgement of hundreds of millions. Settled March 5, 2026 for $10M after the case was placed on hold following the administration change.
Lit. Release No. LR-26496
The SEC alleged Al-Naji raised $257M through BTCLT token sales while misrepresenting how funds would be used, including alleged personal expenditures. After almost two years of litigation, the SEC dropped the entire case with prejudice on March 16, 2026 — meaning it cannot refile. The agency cited a "reassessment of the evidentiary record" and the new crypto task force's direction.
Both actions reflect the SEC Crypto Task Force's 2025 mandate to develop a clear regulatory framework for digital assets and pull back from case-by-case enforcement. Cases built on broad interpretations of "security" under the Howey test are being reassessed. The BitClout dismissal — with prejudice — signals the new enforcement posture is structural, not temporary: the agency is not pausing cases, it is closing them permanently. For securities lawyers advising digital asset issuers, this week's dual exits mark the beginning of a new regulatory era at the SEC.
Chief Judge Boasberg's February 2026 order directed the Trump administration to facilitate the return of 137 Venezuelan men deported to CECOT — El Salvador's maximum-security anti-terrorism prison — under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. Many had no verified gang connection. The order to return them to U.S. ports of entry so they could seek habeas relief was met with administration resistance and emergency appeals.
Source: ACLU · Connecticut Public
At 33 confirmed judges in the first 14 months of the term, the pace of judicial confirmation is reshaping which courts will hear the challenges to the administration's regulatory agenda
The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced four district court nominees on March 5, 2026, in a party-line vote. Separately, the committee voted 12-10 on two U.S. Attorney nominees on March 12. The pipeline matters because many of the regulatory and constitutional battles described in this edition — the EPA endangerment finding, the CFPB funding fight, the immigration enforcement challenges — will be decided first at the district and circuit levels, before reaching the Supreme Court.
Source: Senate Judiciary Committee · U.S. Courts — March 2026 Confirmations
Federal statutes at 2 U.S.C. §§ 1, 7 establish a uniform national Election Day for federal elections. More than 15 states allow mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be received and counted for days afterward — some up to two weeks later. The Republican National Committee argues those laws are federally preempted; the states argue Congress never addressed the receipt question and left it to state law.
Federal law sets Election Day as the deadline to vote — not the deadline for ballots to arrive. Counting postmarked, validly cast ballots received after Election Day does not extend the election; it merely processes the results. Congress never addressed ballot transit time and left that to state administrative judgment. Pre-emption requires a clear statement.
Federal law establishes a single national Election Day for a reason: uniform finality. Allowing states to count ballots arriving days after the polls close effectively extends the election period beyond what Congress intended. "Election Day" must mean the same thing for ballots cast in person and those cast by mail. Fifteen states' post-Election-Day receipt windows conflict with federal uniformity.
Source: SCOTUSblog · SCOTUSblog — Case File
Seven weeks of consequential argument — from Election Day mail ballots to birthright citizenship to the legal future of 356,000 TPS holders
Must mail ballots be received by Election Day, or only cast? Answer determines whether 15 states' post-Election-Day receipt windows survive federal preemption. Direct effect on 2026 midterms.
Does a person physically blocked from crossing a port of entry by federal officers legally "arrive in the United States" for asylum eligibility under the INA? The ruling determines whether physical obstruction can extinguish statutory asylum rights.
The most consequential case of the term: whether the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause covers children born to undocumented parents, and whether district courts may issue nationwide injunctions blocking executive orders. A decision on injunction scope could reshape every major APA challenge in this edition.
The Senate Judiciary Committee holds its next nominations hearing at 10:15 AM in Dirksen SB Room 106. Additional district court judges and executive branch nominees expected. Results will affect the courts hearing the EPA, CFPB, and tariff challenges.
Oral argument on TPS terminations for 6,000 Syrians and 350,000 Haitians. The Court decides the reviewability of TPS termination decisions and the legal standard for DHS's designation authority. Decision expected late June.
The newly filed state and environmental group petitions challenging EPA's Endangerment Finding rescission will be briefed and set for argument in the D.C. Circuit — the first step on a path that almost certainly ends at the Supreme Court.