Only Congress can decide when the United States goes to war. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌   ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 
Donate
Brennan Center for Justice
 
AFP
Over the weekend, U.S. forces bombed Venezuela and captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. It was a blatant violation of the Constitution, which gives only Congress the power to declare war, not the president. Administration officials and lawmakers have attempted to defend the legality of President Trump’s regime-change operation, including by comparing it to the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama, but their arguments don’t hold water, as there are fundamental differences between the two situations. Congress now has a duty to the public and to the Constitution to reject this presidential abuse of war powers.
Republicans and Democrats alike should be concerned about recent setbacks to vital research on criminal justice initiatives. Last year, the Trump administration slashed some $63 million in grant awards that supported criminal justice research and data collection. A new installment in a Brennan Center series exploring the effects of broader Justice Department funding cuts examines how curtailing federal support for these longtime bipartisan priorities impedes efforts to prevent crime, improve the criminal justice system, and keep communities safe.
The Supreme Court is once again weighing the fate of the Voting Rights Act this term, and the law’s last remaining pillar is at risk. There’s good reason to be concerned about the fallout of a decision in the redistricting case out of Louisiana. New research shows that the last time the Court effectively eliminated one of the law’s core protections — in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 — it exploded the racial turnout gap in states with histories of racial discrimination.
The Supreme Court and many other federal courts are increasingly deciding major legal questions using originalism — the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its “original public meaning” or related ideas of “history and tradition.” The approach has drawn widespread criticism for frequently sidelining precedent, moral reasoning, logic, and transparency. Still, originalism’s grip on the courts can’t be ignored. A new guide from the Brennan Center offers litigators practical tools, arguments, and citations to push back against originalist claims they encounter in court.

 
PODCAST
The president’s unauthorized military operation in Venezuela is alarming and unprecedented. Our experts discuss the legal issues at play and what Congress can do right now to respond. Watch or listen on YouTube // Spotify // Apple // Substack
This past year, we saw extraordinary threats to American democracy: executive power grabs, attacks on the freedom to vote, and more. Yet we also saw a growing response from courts and citizens. Brennan Center experts break down what happened and what might come next. Watch or listen on YouTube // Spotify // Apple // Substack

 
BRENNAN CENTER ON SOCIAL MEDIA
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Trump tariffs case could have major implications for the separation of powers and limits on presidential authority. Learn more on TikTok >>

 
 
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271
646-292-8310
Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here to update your preferences.
BlueSky Facebook threads Instagram TikTok LinkedIn YouTube Twitter Website