Center Square

Four election integrity groups filed an amicus brief in support of a case that requests the U.S. Supreme Court not allow state laws that permit counting ballots arriving after Election Day, with experts saying that the recent normalization of late ballots negatively affects trust in and efficiency of elections.
Executive Director of Honest Elections Project Jason Snead told The Center Square that “this case is nothing more than a return to the norm and an enforcement of federal law against a novel scheme that illegally extends elections beyond Election Day.”
Late arriving ballots “[erode] confidence in the outcome,” and “mean that election results are delayed,” Snead said.
“We have seen long delays in declaring a winner and instances where late arriving ballots change the outcome,” Snead said.
Honest Elections Project was joined by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Center for Election Confidence (CEC), and Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE) in filing the amicus brief in Watson v. Republican National Committee.
Snead told The Center Square that the case “is about a conflict between federal and state law.”
“Federal law sets Election Day,” Snead said. “The question for the court is whether accepting late ballots extends or alters Election Day.”
“A ruling in favor of the RNC would increase confidence in the outcome of elections,” Snead said.
Snead additionally told The Center Square that “routine, widespread mail voting only began in the last few decades, and laws accepting late ballots are even newer.”
“Thirty-six states do not allow late ballots, and historically that has been the norm,” Snead said. “Of the fourteen that allow late ballots, half only began during COVID, an emergency that has long since ended.”
President of RITE Justin Riemer told The Center Square that his organization is “pleased to stand alongside the Center for Election Confidence, Honest Elections Project, and ALEC in urging the Court to uphold the straightforward meaning of federal law.”
“The federal Election Day deadline isn’t just a legal mandate, it’s essential for maintaining order and building public trust in our elections,” Riemer said.
ALEC CEO Lisa B. Nelson told The Center Square that “federal law concerning Election Day is clear, and states have no obligation to continue to count ballots well beyond the close of polls.”
“If states want to ensure more confidence in their elections, ALEC’s model policy, the Deadline for Return and Receipt of All Ballots Act, is a good starting point,” Nelson said.
“ALEC is proud to stand with its partners on this important principle,” Nelson said.

The U.S. businesses that paid billions in tariffs to the federal government want their money back.
After the U.S. Supreme Court found President Donald Trump exceeded his authority under a 1977 law, business groups quickly called for refunds of these tariffs.
The high court decision affects Trump’s tariffs enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump had used the law to impose tariffs on nearly every imported product from every country.
Neil Bradley, executive vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the ruling was good news for U.S. businesses and consumers.
“Swift refunds of the impermissible tariffs will be meaningful for the more than 200,000 small business importers in this country,” he said.
The nation’s largest business lobby also asked for a full reset on tariffs.
“We encourage the administration to use this opportunity to reset overall tariff policy in a manner that will lead to greater economic growth, larger wage gains for workers, and lower costs for families,” Bradley said.
The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated the Supreme Court ruling will generate up to $175 billion in refunds.
Getting that money won’t be easy. International Chamber of Commerce Secretary General John Denton warned that refunds could be challenging.
“Companies should not expect a simple process: the structure of U.S. import procedures means claims are likely to be administratively complex,” he said. “[The] ruling is worryingly silent on this issue and clear guidance from the Court of International Trade and the relevant U.S. authorities will be essential to minimize avoidable costs and prevent litigation risks.”
Trump sharply criticized the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday before announcing a new set of tariffs under different laws to replace the import duties invalidated by the high court. He also criticized the Supreme Court for its silence on the issue of refunds. He said that failure by the high court could mean refunds end up in court disputes for years.
Gary Shapiro, CEO of the Consumer Technology Association, a trade group, said “the government must act quickly to refund retailers and importers without red tape or delay.”
Some businesses filed for refunds even before the Supreme Court ruling.
Warehouse retailer Costco filed a lawsuit in December to hold its place in the refund line, where other companies were already waiting. Costco noted a separate lawsuit was needed because importers “are not guaranteed a refund for those unlawfully collected tariffs in the absence of their own judgment and judicial relief.”
The request hints at a complicated refund process for a share of the billions in tariffs the federal government collected in fiscal year 2025. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett said refunds could be a “mess” during oral arguments in November.
U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent seeking a “detailed explanation” of how the refund process would work.
“Many American businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses, have struggled to pay these illegal tariffs and, for some, the financial strain has placed them on the brink of bankruptcy,” she wrote in the letter. “It is essential [that the Treasury Department] implement an expeditious and transparent process to remediate the financial harm that resulted from these illegal tariffs.”
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat with plans for higher office, demanded a refund of $8.6 billion for all families in his state.
“On behalf of the people of Illinois, I demand a refund of $1,700 for every family in Illinois,” the governor wrote, threatening further action if the White House failed to comply.
Recent economic research has found that Americans are picking up the cost of tariffs. A report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York confirmed “U.S. firms and consumers continue to bear the bulk of the economic burden of the high tariffs imposed in 2025,” according to a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Other studies have reported similar findings on the impact of the tariffs. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy found that Americans are paying almost the entire cost of tariffs.

As tourists are expected to flock to the nation’s capital for spring break and America’s 250th birthday, there is a new attraction at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History – First Lady Melania Trump’s inaugural gown is on display.
The first lady made history Friday when she donated her Hervè Pierre-designed dress to the Smithsonian. The strapless, off-white crepe, floor-length gown is trimmed with two bands of black silk gazar in a zig-zag formation. Her ensemble was completed with a matching simple black choker, adorned with a floral diamond reproduction of a 1955 Harry Winston brooch.
While most first ladies find themselves thrust into fashion through their husband’s presidency, Melania Trump, a fashion model, brought her own passion for fashion and design to the White House. While Pierre designed her gown, she collaborated to bring the design to life.
During her remarks at the presentation ceremony, Trump briefly described her love for the process and the complexity involved in creating the garment.
“Personally, I relish the entire design process, from start to finish. It takes time, it’s slow, but the end result is always magical,” said the first lady. “It is no easy feat to construct such a complex garment. Behind every true couture piece stands a superior team of patternmakers, seamstresses, and artisans who transform a creative idea into reality.”
Trump argues that the dress’s design reflects the American spirit, while crediting the country’s fashion as a potential leader in the industry.
“This black and white masterpiece showcases America’s pure spirit of originality, superior engineering, and boundless creativity. It’s a testament as to why America’s fashion industry can lead the rest of the world,” said the first lady.
Trump is only the second first lady to have both inaugural gowns from the 2017 and 2025 inaugurations displayed at the Washington, D.C., museum as part of a popular exhibit on first ladies.
She joins Ida McKinley, the wife of former President William McKinley, from the inaugurations of 1897 and 1901.
Traditionally, the Smithsonian only collects inaugural gowns of first ladies worn during their husband’s first inauguration, but since President Donald Trump didn’t serve two consecutive terms, they broke the tradition for the first lady.
The tradition of displaying first ladies’ inaugural gowns began with Helen Taft in 1909, the wife of former President William Taft. Trump’s second gown marks 26 dresses on display in the First Ladies exhibit. The exhibit was established in 1912 and includes artifacts from first ladies dating back to America’s first First Lady, Martha Washington.
The Smithsonian Institution comprises 21 museums with a current federal appropriation of over $1 billion, providing 62% of its funding, allowing patrons to visit without paying admission.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and others, including a survivor of a crime, gathered Friday morning at the San Quentin Rehabilitation Center to praise the opening of a $239 million learning center designed to prepare inmates to re-enter society.
The 81,000-square-foot facility consists of three buildings, including a technology and media center with podcast and TV production facilities and reentry center, a hub of classrooms that are operated with universities and a college and features an expanded library, and a community and workforce area that includes a gathering hall, cafe and store. There will be outdoor classrooms with views of the San Francisco Bay, according to the Governor’s Office.
The center was funded through a lease revenue bond, and Newsom said it made more sense to spend the money at San Quentin than to spread it out thinly among many prisons. But he said the San Quentin learning center could be a model for other prisons.
“You can be smart as well as tough on crime,” the Democratic governor told reporters as he stood in front of a fence outside the new complex at the state’s oldest prison. “It’s about pragmatism. It’s about dealing with the fundamental fact that 95% of the people in the system will go back to your neighborhoods, and what kind of neighbors do you want them to be?”
“Three years ago, I stood here and promised to turn this symbol of the old system into the crown jewel of a new one,” Newsom said. “Today, with the opening of this learning center, we are proving that rehabilitation and public safety go hand in hand — and that hope is a powerful tool for safer communities.”
San Quentin was built in 1852, and the San Francisco Bay prison in Marin County is known for its history of inmates such as cult leader Charles Manson, whose followers killed nine people including pregnant movie actress Sharon Tate and coffee heiress Abigail Folger. Other inmates included convicted killer Scott Petersen. It has been part of the storylines in a long list of movies, including two starring Humphrey Bogart, “San Quentin” (1937) and “Dark Passage” (1947).
Newsom, who put a moratorium on the death penalty in 2019 in California, noted San Quentin once had the biggest death row in the western hemisphere with 737 people. In 2022, Newsom ordered the building that contained death row be dismantled.
San Quentin State Prison was renamed the San Quentin Rehabilitation Center in 2023 after the passage of Assembly Bill 134. The goal has been to transform the facility into a Norwegian-style facility with vocational training, and officials mentioned visits to Norway during Friday’s press conference.
“If you go in our classrooms, you will see signs that say, ‘Believe in the process,’ ” said Chris Redlitz, cofounder of The Last Mile, a nonprofit launched at San Quentin to provide business and technology training.
Construction of the learning center began 18 months ago on a site near the former death row.
Newsom said the new center shows California can both tackle crime and work to rehabilitate criminals and prepare them for post-prison careers and life.
He pointed to statistics showing that homicides are down 18% in California in 2025 from 2024.
Robberies have fallen 19%, and violent crime is down 12%, Newsom said.
But minutes before Newsom spoke to reporters, a Republican legislator questioned the governor’s priorities in spending $239 million on a prison learning center.
“A prison is supposed to be a prison,” state Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Huntington Beach, said during a phone interview with The Center Square. “He’s putting money, from my understanding, into grocery stores to ‘normalize the environment.’ His words, not mine. A prison should be a prison. People go to a prison because they committed a crime. When you commit a crime, you have to pay the consequence for that action.”
Too often, Newsom has been more considerate of criminals than victims and victims’ rights, Strickland said. He noted the state government’s No. 1 priority is to keep people safe.
Instead of spending $239 million on a learning center, Newsom should be funding enforcement of Proposition 36, the anti-crime measure that voters overwhelmingly passed in 2024, Strickland said.
The measure increases penalties for certain theft and drug charges and includes options for treatments for drug offenders. Strickland has been a critic of what he calls Newsom’s failure to fund enforcement and said he will introduce a bill next week to fund Prop. 36.
At San Quentin on Friday, a survivor of crime praised the opening of the learning center.
“This is a smart investment. It’s an investment that will pay off in the future, in perpetuity,” said Tinisch Hollins, executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice.
Hollins said giving inmates access to education is how public safety is improved over time. “And they shouldn’t have to come to state prison to get it, but I’m glad that it’s here.”
San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins told reporters she has spent the last two-and-a-half years in discussions on reforming the criminal justice system.
It’s important to give inmates the resources they lacked in their communities as they “work on themselves,” Jenkins said.
“The new learning center will scale the work that has begun here and provide residents with more tools to advance their individual journeys as they work to become better than when they came in, making us all safer in turn,” Jenkins said.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated since its original publication to include additional comments.
In the hours after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down much of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, legislators and state officials in California applauded the decision.
“There’s no secret that I have been critical of the tariff policy, both from a personal, as well as from a public policy, perspective,” state Sen. Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, told The Center Square on Friday. “I have never been able to understand how the authority that he has used to impose the tariffs was constitutional, so I certainly agree with what the Supreme Court has ruled.”
The big question, Niello added, is how the effects of this decision could play out.
“That could be a rather messy process,” Niello said. “Perhaps that might take an act of Congress, short of which the administration or the government would have to refund all of the tariffs that were collected. It remains to be seen exactly how all of that is going to work out.”
However, even within the Golden State’s Republican Party, there seems to be some disagreement on what the International Emergency Economic Powers Act enables the president to do.
“I do believe that the power of the president, under the emergency executive order he was using, actually grants him that justification,” Assemblymember David Tangipa, R-Fresno, told The Center Square on Friday. “But there is truth and validity to the power of the purse belongs to Congress, and I do believe that tariffs should be codified. This falls back on [Congress] to actually grant the president those extra powers to make sure we can have balanced and reciprocal tariffs when needed to make sure the United States isn’t losing on an international level.”
As reported by The Center Square, the U.S. Supreme Court early Friday ruled that a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, doesn’t give the president authority to impose tariffs – running counter to the Trump administration’s interpretation of that law. In the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court took the position that the framers of the Constitution did not give the power to issue tariffs to the executive branch. Justices said the Trump administration’s tariffs violated the major questions doctrine.
A news release from California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said Friday’s decision on the constitutionality of the tariffs ended an “unlawful and chaotic” tariff regime.
“Today, the highest court in the country has agreed with arguments put forth by California, our sister states, and the dedicated businesses that decided to fight for their livelihoods and for what was right,” Bonta said. “While this is great news, we must not forget the chaos that sent businesses, consumers, and global economies reeling. California celebrates today’s tremendous win and remains committed to tackling Donald Trump’s agenda to fuel the unaffordability crisis.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom, when asked at a press conference at the San Quentin Rehabilitation Center on Friday about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, remarked that the tariffs were illegal from the beginning.
“It was shocking to me that three members of the Supreme Court actually agreed with Trump,” Newsom told reporters. “He should return that money immediately. Even his hand-picked Supreme Court said what he was doing is lawless.”
Newsom said gross domestic product and manufacturing have gone down during the Trump administration while unemployment has risen. He added that the tariffs are “the most aggressive sales tax” in the country’s history.
“Pay us back,” Newsom said. “Put that back into the pockets of American families.”
Newsom noted he was the first governor to sue the Trump administration over the tariffs.
In the hours after Newsom’s comments, Democratic lawmakers in California mirrored the governor’s remarks, calling the president’s tariff policies “punishing.”
“The president’s sweeping tariffs have now been halted by the Supreme Court, despite his attempts to erode the independence of the judicial branch,” Assemblymember Mia Bonta, D-Oakland, told The Center Square in a written response on Friday. “Today’s decision offers meaningful relief for California families and businesses. But it is not a signal to stand down. We must remain vigilant and prepared for further attempts to raise costs on working people in the service of corporate and billionaire interests.”
Bipartisan support for the ruling came Southwestern members of Congress, although one Republican Arizonan congressman expressed opposition to the ruling, as reported earlier by The Center Square.
Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision on the Trump administration’s tariffs, Trump announced a new round of tariffs that would see a 10% charge on imports from around the world, The Center Square reported on Friday.

Members of Congress from the Southwest on Friday voiced bipartisan support for the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling against President Donald Trump’s tariffs.
The justices said the power to set and change tariffs belongs to Congress, not the president. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion.
U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-California, who voted to overturn Trump’s tariffs on Canada, said checks and balances are the foundation of American government. He added that the nation’s founders understood the tendency for each branch to test the limits of its authority in pursuit of even well-intentioned policy goals.
“Their ingenious solution was a dynamic power-sharing arrangement, a give-and-take among the branches, that would preserve the constitutional design over time,” Kiley told The Center Square. “Last week’s vote by Congress and today’s Supreme Court decision represent precisely that give-and-take envisioned by the founders.”
Kiley said he looks forward to working with his colleagues in the House to address the questions raised by Friday’s decision as members carry on their constitutional responsibilities.
U.S. Rep. Jeff Hurd, R-Colorado, also voted for overturning the tariffs on Canada, alongside most House Democrats.
“Major trade decisions should rest on clear statutory authority, not expansive emergency interpretations,” said Hurd.
California Democrats, including U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, applauded the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“Today, the Supreme Court reaffirmed what we’ve been saying for the past year,” Schiff posted on X. “Trump’s haphazard and reckless tariff policy is illegal and unconstitutional.”
It is a similar story with U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Arizona.
In an X post, Kelly called this “a huge win for American families and small businesses.” Kelly said Arizonans were being hurt by the tariffs, and he applauded Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes for challenging the tariffs.
Like Kelly, U.S. Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nevada, said people in her state were being “squeezed by high prices.” In a news release, Rosen said Trump “intentionally and illegally bypassed Congress” to implement his tariffs.
“It should be a wakeup call for Trump that the rule of law still applies to him,” said Rosen.
Nevada’s other U.S. senator, Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto, said she welcomed the Supreme Court ruling.
“Over the past twelve months, Trump’s trade policies have led to rising costs of food, housing, and fuel while hardworking families suffered,” Cortez Masto said in a statement. “Our businesses, large and small, have felt the squeeze of rising prices, particularly those reliant on tourism. Unfortunately, President Trump is already looking for new ways to levy harmful tariffs on the American people and businesses.”
Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Speaking to reporters at a White House press briefing, Trump said the Supreme Court’s ruling is deeply disappointing. The president also expressed his shame at certain justices for not doing what he said is right for the nation.
“The Democrats on the court are an automatic no,” said Trump. “Just like in Congress, they’re an automatic no. They’re against anything that makes America strong, healthy and great again. They are also, frankly, a disgrace to our nation, those justices.”
Trump also said this is the product of foreign influence. If that is the case, U.S. Rep. Abe Hamadeh, R-Arizona, said it is unacceptable. A former Maricopa County prosecutor, Hamadeh does not agree with the Supreme Court ruling.
“It is clear that some members of the court have little regard for the American people, do not support his America First policies, and are far too concerned with criticism from the fake news,” Hamadeh told The Center Square.
While Democrats and other critics of tariffs claim tariffs hurt people, Hamadeh said his district is “thriving” under the Trump administration.
“My team met with representatives of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. to discuss their plans for future jobs in Arizona, which I have made clear should focus on tapping into our veteran workforce,” said Hamadeh. “They are committed to assisting President Trump’s America First Manufacturing agenda, bringing high-paying employment opportunities to our district, which will dramatically increase the quality of life for our residents.”
When asked whether he would support future efforts by the president to impose tariffs, Hamadeh said yes, adding that he does not think Trump needs to rely on Congress.
“As he made clear in his presser, there are many alternatives available to him,” said Hamadeh. “For my part, I will continue to work with the administration on ensuring President Trump’s tariff policy continues, whether through existing executive action or through Congress.”
During Friday’s White House briefing, Trump announced that he will sign an executive order to enact a 10% global tariff.

Following the victory of removing a climate chapter from the Federal Judicial Center’s manual, 21 state attorney generals are urging the National Academy of Sciences to remove a climate science section from the academies’ manual, expressing their concern over tax money promoting various partisan ideology in the organization.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen – who is leading the charge of his 20 fellows – told The Center Square: “It is unacceptable that the National Academies continue to allow the climate science chapter to remain in circulation, especially when taxpayer dollars are used to support their work.
“When biased theories are presented to judges as fact and neutral reference tools, it compromises judicial impartiality and can tip the scale on pending litigation,” Knudsen said.
“I expect a clear explanation for why it has not been withdrawn and how they plan to prevent biased ideologies in future editions,” Knudsen said.
Knudsen was joined by attorney generals from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming in sending a letter to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
The attorney generals wrote to NAS President Marcia McNutt and NAS President-Elect Neil H. Shubin that the climate agenda found in the manual as well as the organization’s general promotion of DEI and left-wing ideology is “especially troubling since taxpayer money provided by the federal government is the largest source – more than $200 million – of the National Academies’ budget,”
“Taxpayer money should not be used for political causes, particularly by an entity that Congress created to provide independent and objective scientific reports,” the attorney generals wrote.
The NAS was founded in the 1860s to “advise the government on issues related to science and technology.”
NAS has not yet responded to The Center Square’s request for comment.
Executive director of consumer advocacy group Consumers’ Research Will Hild told The Center Square that “taxpayer dollars should not be used by the National Academy of Sciences to push a woke agenda, yet that is exactly what the organization is doing.”
“The Academy has gone all in on the woke agenda by promoting radical climate policies, hosting DEI workshops, pushing implicit-bias ideology into the legal system, and even publishing guidance that treats the First Amendment as an obstacle to censoring speech it dislikes,” Hild noted, as the attorney generals’ letter likewise did.
“That is not objective science; it is woke politics funded by taxpayers,” Hild stated.
Hild said that “Consumers’ Research applauds the Attorneys General for demanding that the National Academy of Sciences pull this biased climate chapter and stop using taxpayer resources to push a radical political agenda.”
“We will continue to support elected officials who push back against woke politics and protect consumers,” Hild said.
This letter comes on the heels of a similar letter sent by 22 state attorney generals to chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committee, requesting a probe into climate activists’ influence on the Federal Judicial Center’s science manual.
The climate chapter was removed; however. CEO of the American Energy Institute Jason Isaac told The Center Square that “the Federal Judicial Center’s decision to ‘omit’ the climate chapter is not the same as rescinding it.”
“The full guide remains publicly hosted by the National Academies under the FJC’s name, and the activist framing embedded throughout the Manual has not been removed,” Isaac said.
“Judicial education must explain scientific method, not normalize litigation strategies or launder contested theories as settled fact,” Isaac said.

President Donald Trump switched to his backup tariff plan after the U.S. Supreme Court said he couldn’t use a 1977 law to impose sweeping tariffs.
Trump announced a fresh round of tariffs hours after the high court invalidated his use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs worldwide. Recent economic research found that Americans paid more than 90% of those import duties.
Trump said he would use other laws to keep the existing tariffs in place and that he would add a 10% global tariff.
“Today I will sign an Order to impose a 10% GLOBAL TARIFF, under Section 122, over and above our normal TARIFFS already being charged,” Trump wrote in a social media post after the ruling.
Trump said that the other tariff laws he plans to use were mentioned in the Supreme Court decision.
“It’s a little more complicated, the process takes a little more time, but the end result is going to get us more money,” Trump said.
The Supreme Court, divided 6-3, held that the 1977 law didn’t give Trump expansive tariff powers to tax goods entering the country. Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito dissented.
The president criticized the decision, but said the ruling won’t stop his tariff plans.
Phillip Magness, senior fellow at the Independent Institute, said Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 would be the safest path forward, but the law comes with limits and restrictions.
“Section 301 has much stricter requirements that Trump must now follow to impose tariffs,” he told The Center Square.
Trump said Friday he plans to launch multiple trade investigations under Section 301.
Magness said Trump has other options as well. Another path would be Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Jamieson Greer have hinted at this option in recent months. However, Section 338 could also face legal challenges.
“The Supreme Court majority apparently did not find this line of argument to be convincing, as only the three dissenters mentioned Section 338,” Magness said. “This suggests that Trump would likely be overturned again in a future decision, setting into a pattern reminiscent of the Biden Administration’s legal jockeying to reinstate student loan forgiveness after the Supreme Court overruled them.”
Magness said Friday’s ruling gives Congress an opening.
“The ball is certainly in Congress’s court now,” he said.
Until earlier this month, the Republican-controlled House had given Trump wide leeway on tariffs. However, House Speaker Mike Johnson failed to extend a rule that had prevented Congress from taking up tariff matters when three members of his party joined Democrats to block the rule.
Rep. Jodey Arrington, chairman of the House Budget Committee, said Congress needs to step up to support the president.
“Congress should immediately codify the President’s reciprocal trade agreements, which would make these deals more durable, entorceable, and effective in the long run,” he said in a statement. “If this can’t be done in a bipartisan fashion, Republicans should use reconciliation – the most potent legislative tool in our toolbox-to safeguard our economic and national security interests.”