Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Campaign Legal Center Sues Elon Musk and DOGE

Campaign Legal Center Sues Elon Musk and DOGE

A scale of justice.

Getty Images, seng kui Lim / 500px

On March 5, 2025, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) — on behalf of the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates, the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) — sued Elon Musk and his so-called U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) for acting beyond their power to slash federal funding, dismantle federal agencies and fire federal employees.

Decisions regarding how the federal government spends its money lie with Congress. Elon Musk’s unchecked power throughout the federal government is a lawless threat to our democracy.


Neither Musk nor DOGE have the lawful authority to exercise the sweeping power that they currently wield in the federal government. However, since President Trump created DOGE and placed Musk at its helm, Musk has exercised significant unconstitutional authority and taken control over our agencies and our funding systems. This illegal and reckless control over the federal government has upended the lives of countless individuals, both within the United States and abroad.

“Our system of checks and balances does not permit the president or an unelected megadonor to unilaterally control the federal budget. Americans must be protected from destructive, illegal and unconstitutional DOGE actions,” said Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center. “Elon Musk, the president’s biggest political donor, is recklessly interfering with the work of the federal government, threatening our safety and our well-being. For the sake of our clients and preserving democracy, we call for an immediate end to this unconstitutional power grab.”

“JACL joins this lawsuit to stop DOGE from making reckless cuts that will directly impact national historic sites under the National Park Service that are among those where over 125,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans were unjustly incarcerated during WWII. These sites honor those who were incarcerated and serve as a legacy to our children so that future generations of Americans will understand the unfortunate and preventable capacity for our government to act maliciously against a group of people such as ours,” stated JACL Executive Director, David Inoue. “We invest in our future through our children, and elimination and endangerment of education programs will directly impact many of our own members. Japanese Americans are especially fond of a saying in Japanese, ‘Kodomo no tame ni,’ which means ‘For the sake of the children.’ This is why we join this action today."

“The reckless budget cuts at the Department of Education are a direct assault on Pell Grant recipients, student organizations, and AANAPISI institutions that are vital to advancing educational equity,” said Thu Nguyen, Executive Director of OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates. “Education is the gateway to opportunity — the heart of the American Dream — and these cuts threaten to block that path for countless students. Instead of opening doors for students, DOGE’s action at the ED are slamming them shut, and putting the future of countless young people at risk.”

“American families are already feeling the effects of Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s careless and illegal cuts to our federal workforce. Firefighters and forest management staff have been dismissed as families remain on edge from the threats wildfires pose. Families wanting to enjoy our national parks, forests and monuments are being welcomed with closed signs, long lines and unmaintained trails — before the parks’ busiest season has yet to begin. Without the workers to staff and support our public lands, communities will face more dangerous and deadly fires, park visitors will face unsafe conditions, and local economies that rely on national parks will struggle. Only Trump and Musk would try to threaten America’s best idea. We are taking DOGE to court to defend Americans’ ability to safely and freely access the landscapes that unite us," said Ben Jealous, Executive Director of the Sierra Club.

“When the rule of law is compromised and science is sidelined by an unelected billionaire donor, people get hurt. DOGE’s actions have interfered with life-saving research and scientific collaboration on cancer, vaccines, extreme weather and more,” said Gretchen Goldman, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “They have pulled funding for job-boosting clean technology initiatives and fired civil servants who enforce laws that protect us from air, water and climate pollution. They have compromised websites and other communications channels, obstructing access to data that the U.S. public has paid for and depends on.”

Americans did not elect Elon Musk, and an unelected megadonor should not be able to pick and choose which critical agencies can continue to serve the public or which policy priorities Congress should fund. The courts must move to hold Musk and DOGE accountable. Musk’s activities as DOGE’s head are illegal and a threat to the constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

Campaign Legal Center is a nonpartisan legal organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Founded in 2002, CLC fights for every American’s freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process.


Read More

​Thomas Albus.

Thomas Albus speaks at a press conference in 2019.

Hillary Levin/Post Dispatch/Polaris

What Meetings Among Trump Lawyers Reveal About the FBI’s Seizure of Election Records in Georgia

The Missouri prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the 2020 vote in Fulton County, Georgia, has taken part in meetings since last fall with lawyers tasked by President Donald Trump to reinvestigate his loss to Joe Biden.

Thomas Albus, whom Trump appointed last year as U.S. attorney for Missouri’s Eastern District, has had multiple meetings set up with top administration lawyers to discuss election integrity.

Keep ReadingShow less
A computer mouse's digital clicker hovering above the image of a gavel.

Administrative subpoenas aren’t new—but in a data-driven world, they can expose identity and chill speech. A deep dive into history, Supreme Court doctrine, and modern risks.

Getty Images, J Studios

Administrative Subpoenas: Old Tool, New Risks

The tool people think is new (and isn’t)

Most people assume administrative subpoenas are a relatively new federal instrument—something that took off after 9/11 or emerged as a modern bureaucratic hack. The truth is they’re rooted in the late nineteenth-century rise of federal regulation, when Congress created agencies tasked with investigating industries shaping national life.

In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Act created the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to regulate railroads and investigate abuses. To give the Commission investigatory teeth, Congress authorized it to demand the books, papers, and testimony needed to examine discriminatory practices, alleged safety violations, and other infractions. This early template still defines the tool: agencies can compel information without a judge’s signature upfront. Which is backed, if necessary, by court enforcement if the recipient refuses.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person holding a sign that reads, "Get ICE out of our cities."

Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-OR) joins the Congressional Hispanic Caucus rally outside of the ICE Headquarters on February 03, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Heather Diehl

Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform

After the killing of two Minneapolis citizens by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers in January, Democrats refused to approve further funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) without new reforms. As a result, starting on February 14, no funding has been available for most DHS agencies: TSA, FEMA, CISA, and Coast Guard employees have either been furloughed or are required to work without paychecks (although backpay is expected).

ICE and CBP were given enough funding by last year's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act to continue operations essentially indefinitely in the wake of a shutdown, leaving the rest of DHS as the only leverage Democrats have left.

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