Trump’s murky legal landscape on attacking Iran

descriptions off, selected

captions settings, opens captions settings dialog

Subtitles (en), selected

This is a modal window.

Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.

End of dialog window.

The Hill's Headlines — March 3, 2026

The Hill's Headlines — March 3, 2026

President Trump’s attack on Iran has hurled the administration into muddy legal waters, from the commander-in-chief’s authority to provoke a war to adherence to international law. 

The strikes on Iran began early Saturday after Trump for weeks threatened Tehran with attacks, building up U.S. military might across the Middle East amid diplomatic negotiations on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. Those negotiations have now fallen apart.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed during the joint strikes from the U.S. and Israel, sparking intense debate about what the future of Iran’s leadership looks like as dozens of other government officials were also killed.

It’s also led to a host of domestic legal questions swirling around Trump’s attack that center on a centuries-old separation of powers conflict.  

The Constitution grants Congress the power to “declare” war, but presidents are empowered as commander-in-chief. 

That split of war powers between the branches sets up an inherent conflict, as lawmakers fear the White House is bypassing them while Trump insists his efforts fall under his authority as head of the military. 

Here’s how Congress sees it: 

“Under Congress’s interpretation of the Constitution, the President may introduce troops into hostile circumstances if Congress has (1) declared war, (2) specifically authorized the President to use force, or (3) there is a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its territories.  

The executive branch claims much broader authority and asserts that the Constitution empowers the President to initiate and engage in many types of military action without congressional authorization.” 

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a prominent critic of expansive presidential war authority, is pushing to force a vote on a war powers resolution alongside Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.). A similar push is underway in the House.  

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called Trump’s strikes unconstitutional, saying he “didn’t even bother” to seek congressional approval.  

“If President Trump wants to send American armed forces into conflict, he must make his case to the American people and their representatives in Congress,” Christopher Anders, director of the ACLU’s Democracy and Technology Division, said in a statement. “The commander in chief must follow the chain of command and that begins with we the people.” 

Does this all sound familiar?  

It should — we saw the same concerns when Trump in June bombed three Iranian nuclear sites and following the operation to oust ex-Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro so he could face criminal charges in the U.S. 

Though courts have emerged as the primary obstacle for Trump to accomplish many aspects of his sweeping second-term agenda, it’s unlikely they’ll have an avenue to wade into a fight over Trump’s latest moves in the Middle East.  

Presidents from both parties in have carried out military strikes across the globe without congressional approval: 

Trump during his first term ordered strikes in Syria. 

President Obama bombed Libya alongside the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). 

President Clinton intervened in the Kosovo conflict by authorizing strikes against Serbian forces.  

President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama. 

President Reagan deployed U.S. forces to Lebanon (though, Congress later signed off). 

President Truman sent troops to Korea. 

And that’s just in recent years. Even former President Polk — the 11th president — sent the military to occupy the newly annexed state of Texas without Congress’s initial backing, a move that was seen as a declaration of war with Mexico. 

Republican leaders have stood firmly behind Trump as Democrats raise alarm. 

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), noting he’s a constitutional lawyer, expressed confidence following a briefing from administration officials Monday, though he acknowledged to reporters that the system includes “timetables” for Congress’ role under the Wars Powers Resolution of 1973. 

“But I think the idea that we would move a War Powers Act vote right now — I mean, it will be forced to the floor —  but the idea that we would take the ability of our commander-in-chief, the president, take his authority away right now to finish this job is a frightening prospect to me. It’s dangerous,” Johnson said.  

“And I am certainly hopeful and I believe we do have the votes to put it down.” 

Then, there are questions of international law.  

The United Nations Charter, which Truman ratified in 1945, bars the “use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” 

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres pointed to the provision in a statement Saturday that said the joint attacks by the U.S. and Israel, and retaliation by Iran, “undermine international peace & security.” 

All treaties properly ratified become part of the “Law of the Land,” per the Constitution, even though U.S. courts can’t enforce treaties like the U.N. Charter.  

Plus, while U.N. member nations are entitled to act in self-defense, they abide by a rule of international law that nations must show a threat was “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation,” known as the Caroline doctrine.  

Oona Hathaway, an international law professor at Yale University and former special counsel at the Department of Defense, wrote on X that the military effort amounts to an “attack on the postwar legal order.” 

“Yet again, Trump has taken an action that threatens to end an era of historic peace and return us to a world in which might makes right,” she said. “The cost will be paid in human lives.” 

Welcome to The Gavel, The Hill’s weekly courts newsletter from Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. Reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) or Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48). Sign up here or in the box below:   

FedEx in middle of tariffs fight 

FedEx is playing dual roles in the fight over tariff refunds: Plaintiff and defendant. 

As it sues the Trump administration, FedEx’s customers have begun legal action against the global transportation company.  

The proposed class action lawsuit brought by Morgan & Morgan (you may know the law firm from its prolific television advertising) last week appears to be the first effort by retail customers to directly go after a shipper in court.  

The case heads to U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Becerra, an appointee of former President Biden who serves in Miami. 

“FedEx is the only entity with legal standing to seek a refund of duties directly from the government, This leaves consumers like our client with no choice but to try to legally compel FedEx to refund them for the tariffs that they were charged by FedEx,” John Morgan, the law firm’s founder, said in joint statement with attorney John Yanchunis. 

FedEx has pledged to return any tariff refunds it receives from the government. But the attorneys stress that’s not legally binding and that customers should get back ancillary fees FedEx charged to process the transactions. 

“Our goal is to return to American consumers every penny they were improperly charged,” their statement said. 

Meanwhile, the Iran operation led Trump to make new tariff threats in the Oval Office Tuesday. 

Trump has repeatedly assailed the Supreme Court for its ruling that a 1977 emergency law did not allow him to unliterally impose tariffs, even as all the justices acknowledged it does authorize embargoes and measures arguably more drastic than tariffs. 

As Trump raised the point again in the Oval Tuesday, he turned his ire on Spain after the country said it won’t allow the U.S. to use its air bases as part of its Iran operation. 

“I could tomorrow stop — or today, even better — stop everything having to do with Spain…. embargoes, do anything I want with it,” Trump said. 

“And we may do that with Spain,” the president continued, before turning to his advisers and asking, “What do you think?” 

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, live in front of the cameras, both gave the president assurance. 

“I agree that the Supreme Court reaffirmed your ability to implement an embargo,” Bessent said. 

The remarkable exchange came as Trump was seated alongside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. After threatening Spain, Trump laughingly told his advisers they should hit Germany “very, very hard,” giving Merz a slap on his leg. 

As Spaniards await to see whether the president will make good on his threat, another major update hit the docket this week on the fight over refunds. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the administration’s bid to delay the next stage. Instead, the Federal Circuit sided with the small businesses suing Trump in swiftly returning the case to the trade court. 

Bottom line: The appeals process is now officially closed out. It paves the way for refund proceedings to move ahead. 

“We will be proceeding immediately to get the refunds Americans are owed,” Neal Katyal,  Obama’s onetime acting solicitor general who represents the small businesses, reacted on social media. 

They’ve asked the U.S. Court of International Trade to lift its pause that has automatically halted all litigation related to Trump’s global tariffs and enter an injunction compelling the government to take prompt steps toward getting refunds out the door. 

By default, the Justice Department is due to respond by March 17. Still no word from the trade court on whether they’ll take action before then. 

An animal cruelty update from DOJ 

Last week, The Gavel reported on the Justice Department’s efforts to combat animal welfare crimes. Loyal readers, we have an update:  

We had asked the DOJ for data on other pets. After last week’s edition published, a DOJ spokesperson got back to us.  

They declined to pass along data for non-dogs but pointed to a handful of press releases showing convictions and sentencings of animal abusers.  

In December, a Pennsylvania man was sentenced to 38 months in prison for his involvement in online groups that create and distribute videos of extreme violence and sexual abuse against animals. He pleaded guilty to conspiring to create and distribute “animal crush videos” of baby and adult monkeys, using encrypted chats to send funds to people in Indonesia willing to commit and film the acts of torture. 

Other wins highlighted by DOJ included the August conviction of a former NFL player for operating a large-scale dog fighting and trafficking venture in Oklahoma, where 190 dogs were seized, and the sentencings of 14 defendants convicted in a dog fighting case in Georgia. 

A Justice Department spokesperson emphasized that the agency is directing the “full resources of the federal government” under a National Strategy for Combatting Animal Welfare Crimes.  

“Dog fighting and animal torture has no place in our country, and AG Bondi is committed to bringing those who pursue these reprehensible acts to justice,” they said. 

We’ll continue to keep an eye on DOJ’s efforts to crack down on animal abuse. 

5 top docket updates    

California parents eke win in school gender identity fight: The Supreme Court ruled California is likely violating the constitutional rights of parents who object to policies preventing teachers from disclosing when their child changes their name or pronouns in school.  

Trump v. law firms chaos: The Trump administration abandoned its appeals of four rulings by federal judges that rebuffed Trump’s executive orders aimed at law firms Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey. Then, a day later, it asked to keep defending the orders.  

SCOTUS gives GOP win in NY redistricting: The Supreme Court blocked a state judge from redrawing Rep. Nicole Malliotakis’ (R-N.Y.) congressional district, agreeing to her emergency request to restore the lines that connect Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn.  

East Wing ballroom unimpeded: A federal judge declined to halt President Trump’s White House ballroom construction project at the request of preservationists who sued.  

Lawmaker ICE visit restrictions blocked: A federal judge again struck down a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy seeking to block lawmakers from making unannounced visits to immigration detention facilities. 

Grand juries galore: The Pew Research Center has a new report out about federal grand juries — and the frequency with which they decline to indict, as several have in cases involving Trump’s prosecution priorities. There’s not much data since the government stopped reporting those figures, but Pew says grand juries refused to indict an average of 15 people each year nationwide in the decade-long period between fiscal 2007 and 2016. 

The Founders drank how much? For a modern gun control measure to comply with the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court requires a historical analogue. So, when the justices on Monday scrutinized the federal crime of drug users possessing guns, they turned to founding-era drunkards. Justice Neil Gorsuch intently questioned whether the law could’ve disarmed John Adams, who “took a tankard of hard cider with his breakfast,” James Madison who “reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day” or Thomas Jefferson, who “only had three or four glasses of wine a night.” Read the full argument transcript here. 

 Things a veteran SCOTUS attorney can say but you can’t: Veteran Supreme Court attorney Lisa Blatt gets away with saying a lot of things to the justices at oral arguments. She was back cracking jokes Tuesday. Her top hits: She told Chief Justice John Roberts, “it might be easier if you were medicated, too, for my job.” At another point she quipped, “I’m just trying to get Justice [Samuel] Alito’s vote.” After Justice Sonya Sotomayor appeared frustrated at Blatt interrupting her, Blatt didn’t quite apologize. But she then jokingly assured Sotomayor, “it’s wonderful what you’re saying. Keep going.” We don’t recommend first-time advocates try this strategy. These are the perks of having argued 50+ cases before the court with an 82 percent win rate. Read the full argument transcript here. 

Cases the Supreme Court is taking up — or passing on — this term.  

The justices took up no new cases at their closed-door conference this past week.  

Only three cases are on the docket for next term so far. That’s normal; in fact, it’s ahead of schedule. Two cases have been taken up by now each of the past two years.   

OUT: Incarcerated defendant court fees 

In January, we previewed Johnson v. High Desert State Prison as a petition to watch. Two defendants urged the justices to rule incarcerated individuals can split the $350 fee to file a federal lawsuit; they don’t each have to pay it. Appeals can cost an additional $600. 

The Supreme Court turned away the case Monday. But unlike the vast majority that get denied without comment, three liberal justices publicly dissented. 

“That considerable sum makes it even harder for prisoners earning cents on the hour to obtain justice. One of the three plaintiffs in this case chose not to appeal at all,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.  

“I can only hope that the next time indigent prisoners facing this issue raise nearly $1,000 each just for the opportunity to knock on this Court’s door, my colleagues will choose to open it,” Sotomayor continued. 

Fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan publicly dissented, too, but she notably did not sign onto Sotomayor’s opinion. Kagan provided no explanation. 

Petitions for the Supreme Court to take up cases that we are keeping a close eye on. 

Felon-in-possession: In previous editions, we covered the barrage of defendants who’ve urged the justices to take up whether the federal criminal ban on felons possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment. It’s been a bit of a mystery: Weeks ago, the court turned away dozens of such petitions while stalling action on two others, Vincent v. Bondi and Thompson v. United States. This week, the court finally turned away those two without comment. However, they’ve now begun holding onto yet another petition raising the same issue, Beaird v. United States. The mystery continues, but one potential explanation: Beaird raises a second legal question involving the federal sentencing guidelines. The holdup may be connected to that aspect, as the justices have been holding a similar case, Poore v. United States. 

Steve Bannon’s contempt conviction: Onetime Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon is urging the justices to toss his contempt of Congress conviction imposed after he failed to comply with the demands of the now-disbanded House Jan. 6 committee. He’s completed his four-month prison sentence but wants to erase his conviction. Last month, Trump’s Justice Department began pushing to dismiss his charges. They’ve asked the high court to send Bannon’s case back to the trial judge so they can toss it. The case is Bannon v. United States. 

Don’t be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here’s what we’re watching for now:  

The Supreme Court is set to issue opinions.  

The justices will also hear oral arguments over whether state claims of negligently hiring a truck driver are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 or fall under the law’s “safety exception.” 

A federal judge in Massachusetts is set to hold the second stint of a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to a May directive to remove COVID-19 vaccines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommended immunization schedules for children and pregnant women.  

A Washington, D.C., federal judge is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in NewsGuard’s challenge to the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust investigation against the group. 

Another D.C. judge is set to hold a hearing over the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss the American Bar Association’s lawsuit over Trump’s executive orders targeting law firms. 

A federal judge in Oregon is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the Department of Interior’s decision to cancel grants for three ecological organizations, allegedly over their diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. 

A federal judge in Washington, D.C. is set to hold a summary judgment hearing in The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes’s challenge to the Defense Department’s press badge policy. 

A Virginia federal judge is set to hold a hearing on the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a transgender TSA agent after she and other transgender TSA agents were prohibited from conducting security-pat downs and using TSA-controlled restrooms that align with their gender identities. 

The Supreme Court will issue orders. 

A federal judge in Florida is set to hold a hearing on Capital One’s motion to dismiss Trump’s lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase and its longtime CEO, Jamie Dimon, over accusations the company “debanked” him by closing his accounts in 2021 after the Capitol attack. 

The New Yorker’s James Verini: The Man Who Broke Into Jail 

Politico’s Ankush Khardori in conversation with NPR’s Nina Totenberg, The Wall Street Journal’s James Romoser, The New York Times’s Jodi Kantor and Politico’s Josh Gerstein: “Infiltrating the Supreme Court” 

The New York Times’s Anna Griffin: In the Northwest, Polyamory Finds Something New: Legal Protection 

Reuters’s Joseph Ax: How Trump’s bid to reshape House maps stalled after pushback from Democrats, courts 

Law.com’s Ross Todd: Trial By Firepower Doesn’t Impress This Bench 

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Talarico beats Crockett in Texas Democratic Senate primary

Ted Cruz, Tim Scott asking Treasury to approve $200B tax cut without ...

Canadian PM Carney says US and Israel’s strikes on Iran mark ‘failure of ...

Talarico beats Crockett in Texas as GOP heads to runoff: Key takeaways

Noem’s spending review has held up more than 1,000 FEMA contracts, grants and ...

GOP state lawmakers urge White House to halt efforts to block state AI laws

Live results: Crockett, Talarico seek Democratic nod in Texas Senate race

Talarico prevails as Trump looms over Texas Senate GOP runoff

‘Breathtaking’: Independent senator deplores Rubio’s explanation for Iran ...

Democrat mocks Mullin for remarks on ‘smell’ and ‘taste’ of ...

Noem faces GOP heat over $220M ad that boosted ‘your name recognition’

John Bolton says Hegseth needs ‘attitude adjustment’ after Iran briefing

Noem fends off attacks from left and right in heated hearing: 5 takeaways

Live updates: Cornyn, Paxton move to runoff; Texas Supreme Court order ...

US orders evacuations across Middle East, halts operations at 3 embassies

Holladay wins Arkansas special election in key Democratic pickup

Speaker Johnson pushes against war powers resolution: ‘Frightening’

Trump knocks Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly over Iran criticism: ‘MAGA is ...

The Hill Podcasts – Morning Report

© The Hill