Skip to content
Project 2025
Donate to support
diverse voices
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Cargo containers piled on each other.

The Facts on U.S.–Canada Tariffs Nearly One Year Into Trump’s Plan

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

An illustration of two hands controlling a small person attached to strings.

Parallels and Patterns: George Orwell’s 1984, Hitler’s Nazi, and Trump 2.0

Like Citizens United, Moore v. Harper could haunt American democracy

Like Citizens United, Moore v. Harper could haunt American democracy

Organizations and individuals gathered outside the Supreme Court argue the manipulation of district lines is the manipulation of elections.

Photo by Aurora Samperio/NurPhoto via Getty Images
David O'Brien
By David O'BrienJan 20, 2023
David O'Brien
See More Writings by author

O’Brien serves as Policy Director at RepresentUs. He is an attorney focusing on legislation and policy issues.

This Saturday, January 21st, marks the thirteenth anniversary of the famous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision. This year, we’re not going to celebrate in the traditional way: sending unlimited corporate contributions to super PACs. Instead, we’re marking the date by warning about another Supreme Court case that also has the potential to radically reshape American politics: Moore v. Harper.

The effects of Citizens United were immediate and long-lasting. The nonpartisan organization Open Secrets found that in the two decades before Citizens United, non-party outside groups spent $750 million on campaigns. In the one decade since Citizens United, that number exploded to $4.5 billion – a six-fold increase.

While activists and good government groups raised alarms about Citizens United at the time, American politics has changed in ways few could have imagined. Once unthinkable amounts of political spending are now routine. According to the same Open Secrets report, as of 2020, eight of the ten most expensive Senate elections and nine of the ten most expensive House elections in American history have happened after Citizens United. For better or worse (and it’s definitely worse), we’re now living in a post- Citizens United world.

But if you thought post- Citizens United was a seismic shift, the post- Moore world could be even bigger. Where Citizens United opened the floodgates to big money in politics, Moore v. Harper could all but eliminate checks and balances at the state level.

The specifics of the Moore v. Harper case center around gerrymandering. During the 2021 redistricting process, the North Carolina Legislature passed a congressional map that, according to the Princeton Gerrymandering Project’s Redistricting Report Card, was extremely gerrymandered. Voters brought a lawsuit challenging the gerrymandered map, and the North Carolina Supreme Court found it violated several provisions of the state constitution. Ordinarily, this would be the final word because state courts are the highest authority when it comes to state constitutions.

But in an unusual move, the North Carolina General Assembly appealed the state supreme court’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. They rely on a fringe interpretation of the U.S. Constitution called the independent state legislature theory (ISL). Under extreme versions of ISL, state legislatures could have unchecked power at the state level over federal elections, unrestrained by state courts and constitutions. That means that when it comes to federal elections, regular checks and balances in the lawmaking process could be at risk – including state court review, ballot initiatives, and gubernatorial vetoes.

The fate of North Carolina’s congressional districts is the immediate issue at hand. But the eventual impact is even more disturbing. If the Court decides to recognize ISL, decades of precedent could be upended. State legislatures could ignore state constitutions when it comes to federal elections – and there’d be nothing the courts could do to stop them. Voters might not be able to reform federal elections by ballot measure. Independent redistricting commissions might not be an option to fight congressional gerrymandering.

It’s difficult to count the sheer number of election laws and practices that could be at risk under ISL. But many parts of the voting process that you probably take for granted are at risk. As our States of Chaos report details, every state’s election laws would be vulnerable, including policies that touch on nearly every aspect of American democracy. Many people don’t realize, for example, that the right to a secret ballot does not exist in the U.S. Constitution and is primarily guaranteed through state constitutions. If, as ISL proponents insist, state legislatures can’t be bound by state constitutions when it comes to federal elections, that right will only exist at the whim of politicians.

For voters, the impact could be profound. You might live in a congressional district drawn by a redistricting commission. You might be a person who counts on voting absentee if you’re sick or out of town on Election Day, or simply because you prefer to do it that way. Perhaps you vote for members of Congress using Ranked Choice Voting, or by choosing one of the two candidates that have advanced from an open, nonpartisan primary election. However you cast your ballot, you’re confident that who you voted for is a secret. A state legislature could wipe all of that away if the Supreme Court recognizes ISL.

Citizens United opened the floodgates of dark money into our elections, but Moore could fundamentally change the structure of federal elections. Some say that we shouldn’t worry about Moore because many of the things ISL threatens are settled law – already decided by the Supreme Court. That might be wishful thinking, since it ignores the reality that many of the issues in Citizens United had been settled law too. That settled law didn’t stop the Court from overturning its own precedents in that case. Nothing can stop the Court from upending years of precedent and practice if it wants to side with special interests over democracy and politicians over voters.

Thirteen years later, many Americans rightly point to Citizens United as a dangerous turn for our democracy. Thirteen years from now, we may say the same thing about Moore v. Harper.


Latest news

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem
Environment

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”
Ethics & Leadership

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift
Elections

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift

Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026