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

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s swearing in makes history during unprecedented time for the Supreme Court

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson being sworn in

Chief Justice John Roberts, (right) administers the oath of office to newly installed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Thursday.

Fred Schilling/Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States via Getty Images
Candice Norwood, The 19th
By Candice Norwood, The 19thJul 01, 2022
Candice Norwood, The 19th
See More Writings by author

Originally published by The 19th.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in on Thursday as the 104th associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. She is taking her place as the first Black woman on the court at a complex time, when questions are being raised about its legitimacy and the role of politics in its decision making.

Legal experts celebrated Jackson’s ascent to the high court, but told The 19th they have mixed feelings about what this moment means for the country.

“Being a Black woman in America is about often having to hold two conflicting thoughts at the same time. So, on one hand, I feel this joy that she is breaking this huge barrier that has been in place for centuries,” said Kimberly Mutcherson, co-dean and professor at Rutgers Law School in Camden, New Jersey. “Then the other thought is how easily this country takes away from us. It gives and it takes almost an equal measure.”

Jackson’s appointment fulfilled a promise PresidentBiden made on the campaign trail in 2020, when he said he would nominate a Black woman to the nation’s highest court. She brought an accomplished résumé with experiences underrepresented on the court: She was confirmed in 2021 to Washington, D.C.’s prestigious federal court of appeals, had nearly a decade of experience as a federal judge, worked on the U.S. sentencing commission and had served as a federal public defender.

Jackson is replacing Justice Stephen Breyer, whose retirement became official on Thursday and who was one of the three liberal justices who voted against overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision establishing a federal right to abortion. With Jackson’s addition, that liberal wing is now a multiracial group of three women. Their ability to influence decisions may be limited, but in their judicial dissents they can help create a blueprint for future rulings, said Gretchen Borchelt, vice president for reproductive rights and health at the National Women’s Law Center.

“Taking the long view knowing that someday these searing dissents from [Sonia] Sotomayor, [Elena] Kagan, and hopefully now Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, will be the majority opinion. That gives me hope and optimism,” Borchelt said.

Biden nominated Jackson in February, and three days of Senate confirmation hearings were held less than a month later, highlighting stark political divisions surrounding the court. At one point Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas asked whether she believes babies are racist. Multiple Republican senators accused her, without evidence, of protecting child abusers. She was confirmed April 7 by a vote of 53-47.

Now, Jackson will take her seat on the court just days after it overturned roe. Friday’s ruling in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ignited concern about other privacy-based rights, including same-sex marriage equality and access to contraception.

The ruling also raised another question about the court itself: A draft of the Dobbs opinion was published by Politico in May, sparking an internal investigation into how the decision was leaked. Leaks from the court have been rare, and no full draft opinion has become public in this manner in modern times.

The abortion ruling — and leak — come after years punctuated by political fights over the court. At the end of President Barack Obama’s administration, Republican senators blocked the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland, saying it was too close to the 2016 presidential election.

That led to President Donald Trump successfully appointing his first justice, Neil Gorsuch. A fight also ensued around Trump’s second Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, who faced allegations of sexual assault and misconduct. Following the conflict surrounding Garland’s nomination during an election year, Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination by Trump in September 2020, less than two months before the presidential election, upset many Democrats.

More recently Justice Clarence Thomas, who became the second Black Supreme Court justice after his nomination by Republican President George W. Bush in 1991, has faced questions about his objectivity in voting on issues around the election. His wife, Ginni Thomas, reportedly pressed state lawmakers and a Trump White House official to find ways to overturn Trump’s 2020 election defeat to Biden.

Through the years, public sentiment about the court has eroded. Just 25 percent of Americans said this month that they have confidence in the Supreme Court, according to a Gallup poll. In 2012, that number was 37 percent; in 2002 it was 50 percent.

The Dobbs decision reflects how “the court is reminding us how little we matter,” Mutcherson said. “And by ‘we’ I mean all of the folks who were left out of the Constitution when it was originally written, and who have slowly been incorporated into that document.”

Glynda Carr, the president of Higher Heights for America PAC, which supports progressive Black women running for office, cautioned that Jackson’s presence alone cannot save the rights many see being in jeopardy.

“One Black woman is not going to save the world or democracy,” Carr said. Jackson will bring her qualifications and lived experiences, Carr continued, but cannot carry the court on her own.

Looking forward, Carr said the public’s heightened interest in the court and justice’s political ties could bring about a new wave of action and scrutiny.

“I think Americans are uniquely in tune to the power of this court,” Carr said. “I think the advocacy that everyday Americans will have around the court in this moment will forever change.”


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