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

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

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

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

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

GOP looks to keep fighting against late-arriving mail ballots in Pennsylvania

Early ballot in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania election officials cannot begin processing mail-in ballots before Election Day, ensuring the winner of the state's 20 electoral votes will not be known for days.

Mark Makela/Getty Iamges
David Hawkings
By David HawkingsOct 20, 2020
David Hawkings
See More Writings by author

Republicans signaled Tuesday they are not giving up their effort to shut down the vote count on Election Day in Pennsylvania, hours after the Supreme Court delivered a significant win to Democrats by permitting absentee ballots in the pivotal battleground to arrive later.

Word from GOP leaders in the state magnified the realities that legal fighting over almost every aspect of the presidential race is far from over — and that Judge Amy Coney Barrett could play a deciding role in this year's essential democratic exercise as soon as she arrives on the high court, probably next week.

For the time being, though, the situation in Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes crucial to both candidates, is something of a good news, bad news situation for an already confused electorate.

On the one hand, voters who wait until the last minute to cast their absentee ballots are less likely to be disenfranchised because they get delayed by the mail. But on the other hand, the winner in the state, and perhaps the winner of the presidency, very likely won't be known until the weekend after the election — at the earliest.

That suspense will be compounded because none of the state's 2 million or more expected vote-by-mail envelopes will even be opened, and the signatures on them checked, until after the polls open Nov. 3. Negotiations in Harrisburg on a last-minute deal to allow that processing to start earlier essentially collapsed Monday.

What the Supreme Court decided later Monday night, because of a 4-4 deadlock, was to let stand a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. It had ruled that ballots arriving by Nov. 6, or three days late, should be counted so as not to punish voters for the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic and delays by the Postal Service — so long as they were postmarked by the time the polls closed or, if the postmark was missing or illegible, it could be proved the ballot went in the mail after Election Day.

The state court noted that Pennsylvania law allows mail ballots to be cast on Election Day, even though delivering them by the end of the day is impractical. Republicans say the court claimed authority that belongs to legislators.

Putting a halt on that ruling, called a stay, would have required five votes. The four most conservative justices justices would have done so: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. On the other side were Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and the three liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Neither side offered anything in writing, and the fact that it took two weeks for the decision in such an urgent case suggests that compromise had proved impossible.

But it also gave the Republicans a legal window to try again after all nine seats are occupied. Barrett is on course to secure Senate confirmation in the first half of next week, which is the week before the election. During her confirmation hearings she declined to say if she would recuse herself from presidential election cases, on the grounds she would be biased toward the candidate who put her on the court.

Top Pennsylvania GOP officials issued statements Tuesday signaling they were ready to press the issue.

Monday night's ruling "only underscores the importance of having a full Supreme Court as soon as possible," Chairman Lawrence Tabas said. "The Supreme Court decided not to grant a stay — which does not mean the actions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would withstand a legal challenge to their Judicial overreach should the court hear the case."

"We are still hopeful that a full court will reverse the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's intrusion, added the party's top attorney, Tom King.

Trump, meanwhile, derided the Supreme Court ruling as "ridiculous" on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday morning.

The decision sets aside one of the biggest legal hurdles still facing the election in Pennsylvania. The state Supreme Court is expected to decide in the coming days what rules, if any, should face election officials confronted with sloppy mail ballot signatures.

Democrats had requested 1.7 million absentee ballots in the state as of the end of last week, to just 672,000 for Republicans — one of the reasons the Joe Biden campaign is optimistic of carrying the state if all his supporters follow through. Trump carried the state by 44,000 votes, or less than 1 point, last time.

"In a year where there is a very real possibility that the final presidential election result hinges on Pennsylvania, the new rules imposed by the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (a body elected in partisan elections) could destroy the American public's confidence in the electoral system as a whole," the state GOP and the party's legislative leaders said in their high court brief.

Pennsylvania and North Carolina are the two presidential tossup states where Republicans control the legislatures but Democrats hold most state Supreme Court seats.

The justices' decision was a big deviation from its record in election cases since the pandemic began. In all but one other case, the court has come down on the side of stricter rules for voting — mainly by applying a precedent against judges loosening procedures close to Election Day. It's first such ruling, hours before Wisconsin primary day in April, overturned a federal judge's decision lengthening the time for absentee voting. (The court did allow ballots to arrive late in that case, too, however.)


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