Biazzo Law Participates on the Winning Side of Two U.S. Supreme Court Cases Defending the Constitution

At a time when many Americans worry about the durability of constitutional limits on government power, two recent United States Supreme Court cases reaffirmed a fundamental principle of American law: no branch of government is above the Constitution.

Biazzo Law had the privilege of participating on the prevailing side of both matters through amicus curiae briefing, advocating for the preservation of separation of powers, federalism, and the rule of law.

While the national political climate may feel uncertain, these decisions demonstrate something important: the constitutional system still works when courts enforce its limits and citizens insist on defending it.

What Were the Two Supreme Court Cases About?

The cases addressed two major questions about presidential authority:

1. Can a President impose sweeping tariffs without Congress?

2. Can a President deploy National Guard forces from one state into another without lawful authority?

In both situations, the Supreme Court and the federal courts concluded that executive power has limits defined by the Constitution and federal law.

Case 1: Supreme Court Rejects Unilateral Presidential Tariffs

The first case involved Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, which asked whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) allowed the President to impose sweeping tariffs across global imports.

The Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, reaffirming that the Constitution gives Congress—not the President—the authority to impose taxes and duties.

Tariffs are fundamentally taxes on imported goods. Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the power to impose taxes belongs to Congress alone.

The Court rejected the idea that a statute allowing the President to “regulate importation” could be stretched to justify massive tariffs affecting the entire economy.

The ruling reinforced several important constitutional principles:

• Congress controls taxation and tariffs

• Major economic decisions require clear congressional authorization

• The Executive Branch cannot assume powers not granted by law

Biazzo Law submitted an amicus curiae brief supporting the parties challenging the tariffs, emphasizing that allowing unilateral tariff authority would improperly transfer Congress’s constitutional taxing power to the Executive.

Case 2: Attempted National Guard Deployment into Illinois

The second matter involved an attempted federalization and deployment of National Guard units into Illinois and the City of Chicago.

Biazzo Law filed an amicus brief supporting the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago, arguing that the deployment exceeded the President’s lawful authority.

Federal law allows the President to federalize National Guard forces only under narrow circumstances such as:

• invasion

• rebellion

• an inability to execute federal law

None of those conditions existed in Illinois.

The brief also highlighted several additional constitutional concerns:

The Tenth AmendmentStates retain primary authority over public safety within their borders.

The Posse Comitatus ActFederal military forces generally cannot be used for civilian law enforcement.

The Founders’ design of federalismState militias were intended to act as safeguards against centralized federal power—not instruments of executive coercion against other states.

Allowing one state’s National Guard units to be deployed into another state without consent would undermine the federal balance established by the Constitution.

Why These Decisions Matter

These cases were not about partisan politics.

They were about structural constitutional limits on power.

The Constitution protects liberty not only through the Bill of Rights but also through the structure of government itself, which divides authority among branches and between federal and state governments.

Justice Antonin Scalia explained this concept clearly:

The structural provisions of the Constitution—pitting ambition against ambition—are what transform the Bill of Rights from a paper promise into a living guarantee.

When courts enforce these structural boundaries, they protect the rights and liberties of all Americans.

Points of Light in Challenging Times

The United States is experiencing significant political polarization and institutional stress.

However, moments like these Supreme Court decisions remind us that constitutional checks and balances still function when courts apply the law faithfully.

Judges across ideological lines agreed that executive authority has limits when Congress has not clearly delegated power.

These rulings serve as points of light that demonstrate the enduring strength of the Constitution.

The Duty to Defend the Constitution

Every lawyer, judge, public official, and member of the United States military takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That oath is not to a political party.

It is not to a particular administration.

It is to the Constitution itself.

Executive overreach can occur under leaders of any political ideology. The Constitution’s separation of powers exists precisely to prevent any branch of government from accumulating unchecked authority.

Defending those limits is a responsibility shared by the courts, the legal profession, and the American people.

Biazzo Law’s Commitment to Constitutional Advocacy

Biazzo Law remains committed to defending constitutional principles in courts across the country.

From protecting due process rights in appellate courts to participating in United States Supreme Court litigation involving separation of powers, the firm is dedicated to preserving the rule of law and ensuring that constitutional boundaries remain real and enforceable.

Even in difficult times, these recent decisions demonstrate that constitutional advocacy continues to matter—and can make a difference.

Read the Amicus Briefs Filed by Biazzo Law

Readers who wish to review the legal arguments presented to the Supreme Court can access the briefs below.

Tariffs Case – Supreme Court Amicus Briefhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1287/379179/20251008214716172_Biazzo%2010.08.25%20Amicus%20Brief%20to%20File.pdf

Chicago National Guard Case – Supreme Court Amicus Briefhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25A443/383311/20251103095556145_Chicago%20Guard%20Case%20Brief%20Draft%201.pdf

Key Takeaway

Even during politically turbulent periods, the Constitution remains the ultimate authority in American government.

These two Supreme Court matters demonstrate that when lawyers, courts, and citizens insist on enforcing constitutional limits, the rule of law can prevail.