Your fact-checks will appear here
A Supreme Court case that emphasized the anti-coercion requirement for federal grants.
, settled legal authority to withhold federal payments to individuals or businesses; the constitutional landscape is governed by Spending Clause limits, anti-coercion principles, and a body of precede...
Federal courts have balanced two durable doctrines — the federal government’s plenary power over immigration and the Tenth Amendment anti‑commandeering limit on forcing states to enforce federal law —...
The federal government cannot commandeer state and local officers to carry out federal immigration enforcement because of the Tenth Amendment and the Supreme Court’s anti‑commandeering decisions, but ...
The core legal question is whether President Trump can lawfully invoke the Insurrection Act, withhold federal funds, or otherwise deploy federal forces in Minnesota to suppress protests linked to ICE ...
The Supreme Court has fashioned a compact set of precedents that let Congress use the Spending Clause to attach conditions to federal grants, but only within express limits: conditions must be unambig...
City and state plaintiffs have won or obtained injunctions against federal attempts to withhold funds by framing their claims around separation of powers and Spending Clause limits, alleging executive...