Das Zollschwert des Präsidenten
Die feierliche Amtseinführung von Donald J. Trump am 20. Januar 2025 wird weitreichende geopolitische Auswirkungen haben. Darauf deuten alle Aussagen von Präsident Trump während seines Wahlkampfes, nach seinem Wahlsieg sowie auch die Erfahrungen mit seiner ersten Amtszeit von 2017 bis 2021 hin. Neben allen globalen politischen Herausforderungen, die mit der erneuten Amtszeit von Trump verbunden sein werden, wird auch die internationale Rechtsordnung Belastungsproben ausgesetzt sein. An seiner angekündigten Zollpolitik zeigt sich dies deutlich.
Continue reading >>
Political Resistance and Two Dirty Words
On November 6, Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election in a landslide, winning all Swing States and the popular vote. Given the dire consequences of Trump’s second presidency looming on the horizon, it would be natural for Democrats’ reactions to include some of English’s finest swear words, the f- and the s- words in particular. But besides swearing being impolite, there are at least two other dirty words to consider: Federalism and (State) Sovereignty. It is time to use them for progressive purposes and shield Democrat states against excessive overreach by the Trump administration, as some had already suggested during the first Trump presidency
Continue reading >>
The Messiah and His Oligarchs
On Power, Personalities and Populism.
Continue reading >>
The right lessons from Trump 1.0
The US withdrawal from international institutions is a broader trend, not solely tied to Trump-era policies. Consequently, European governments that aim to preserve the rules-based international order should be prepared to take the lead and fill the gap left by the US exit. To pursue this strategy effectively, certain imperatives must be addressed.
Continue reading >>
On a Knife’s Edge
Launching our Series on the 2024 US Elections
Continue reading >>
A Setback for Homeless Rights in the United States
On June 28, 2024, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (Grants Pass), its most significant case on homelessness in decades. The decision overturned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s 2018 decision in Martin v. Boise (Martin), which mandated that cities allow unhoused individuals to sleep in public spaces when shelter beds were not available. The decision fails to consider the root causes of homelessness in the United States and exacerbates the already fragmented regulatory landscape governing the vulnerable community of the unhoused.
Continue reading >>
Poverty as a Crime
In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Opinion City of Grants Pass v. Johnson held that the Constitution does not guarantee individual protection against the criminalisation of homelessness. Similarly, in May 2024, the European Court of Human Rights found the case concerning the criminalisation of begging, Dian v. Denmark, inadmissible. Both of these judicial decisions are disputed since the criminalisation of poverty cannot solve the problem of homelessness or begging. Rather, it violates the fundamental dignity of the individual.
Continue reading >>
Online Speech at the US Supreme Court in Moody v. Netchoice
The First Amendment of the US Constitution raises some of the most difficult legal hurdles for regulating the global digital public sphere today. In Moody v. Netchoice, the US Supreme Court heard appeals from two judgments, an appeal from a decision of the Fifth Circuit declaring that Texas’ social media law H.B. 20 did not violate the First Amendment, and an appeal from a decision of the Eleventh Circuit finding Florida’s social media law S.B. 7072, instead, unconstitutional. These laws are similar in that they both attempt to impose must-carry and non-discrimination obligations on social media platforms, which in practice amounts to requiring them not to discriminate against conservative users’ posts. The compatibility of these two laws with the First Amendment cuts across a plethora of crucial issues on the future of social media regulation which the court could, but didn’t fully, address.
Continue reading >>
The Supreme Court v. the Administrative State II
The outlook is not rosy for Democrats, neither politically nor in court. Democrats’ hopes that President Biden – who, according to some polls, is trailing Trump in all seven swing states – could turn the odds in his favor in an early debate have been dashed by his disastrous performance. To add insult to injury, in three 6-to-3 rulings along ideological lines, the Supreme Court further reigned in on administrative agencies, putting Biden’s regulatory agenda at risk. The most far-reaching of these decisions is, undoubtedly, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This case marked a milestone for the conservative legal movement’s fight against the administrative state.
Continue reading >>Rethinking the History & Tradition Approach
In a landmark 8-1 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Rahimi that the federal government has the authority to disarm individuals deemed by courts to be credible threats to their partners or children, consistent with the Second Amendment. This ruling marks a significant shift from the Court's previous stance in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which had established a stringent history and tradition test for evaluating gun regulations that undermined key tenets of the rule of law – clarity, consistency, and predictability.
Continue reading >>Ein König zum Unabhängigkeitstag
Der U.S.-amerikanische Supreme Court hat entschieden, dass offizielle Amtshandlungen von Präsidenten Immunität genießen. Anlass war das Verfahren gegen Donald Trump, der sich wegen seiner Beteiligung am versuchten Aufstand vom 6. Januar 2021 vor einem Gericht verantworten muss. Die Entscheidung ist ein voller Erfolg für Trump und wird nicht nur weitere Strafverfahren beeinflussen, sondern auch über den aktuellen Fall hinaus weitreichende Konsequenzen zeitigen. Der Supreme Court hat den USA in der Woche des 248. Unabhängigkeitstages einen neuen König geschenkt.
Continue reading >>
Elektroautos, „Strafzölle“ und Klimaschutz
Internationale Wirtschaftsbeziehungen stehen selten im Zentrum öffentlicher Berichterstattung. Zwei Entscheidungen in den USA und der EU innerhalb von wenigen Wochen haben indes weitreichende Aufmerksamkeit gefunden. Es geht um die Erhebung von Zusatzzöllen auf Elektroautos aus China. Die Maßnahmen der USA verstoßen gegen das Recht der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) und sind völkerrechtswidrig; bei den Maßnahmen der EU ist fraglich, ob Klimaschutz durch Verfügbarkeit günstiger Elektroautos hinreichend berücksichtigt wird.
Continue reading >>
Lessons from New York
Von Januar bis Ende Mai war ich als Gastprofessor an der New York University (NYU). Dort habe ich die Studierendenproteste gegen den Gaza-Krieg hautnah miterlebt. Ich habe dabei gesehen, wie wichtig es ist, dass die unterschiedlichen Lager zu Wort kommen und gehört werden. Beides ist derzeit kaum möglich. Dies ist kein klassischer Blogpost, sondern ein persönlicher und natürlich subjektiver Erfahrungsbericht aus meiner Zeit in New York.
Continue reading >>