(The Center Square) – President Donald Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court late Wednesday to rescue his trade deals and economic agenda after two lower courts said the president has no authority to issue broad tariffs.

Trump’s team told the high court that the nation’s future depends on a quick ruling.

“The stakes in this case could not be higher,” they wrote in a late-night court filing. “The President and his Cabinet officials have determined that the tariffs are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity, and that the denial of tariff authority would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe.”

Two courts have already said the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn’t give the president unbounded tariff authority. The 1977 law doesn’t mention tariffs.

Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and director of litigation at the Texas-based Liberty Justice Center, said businesses are struggling to survive while facing the highest tariffs in nearly a century. Schwab and the Liberty Justice Center filed suit in April representing five small U.S.-based businesses. A group of Democrat-led states also filed suit.

“The government has now asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review this case,” Schwab said. “Both federal courts that considered the issue agreed that IEEPA does not give the president unchecked tariff authority. We are confident that our legal arguments against the so‑called ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs will ultimately prevail. These unlawful tariffs are inflicting serious harm on small businesses and jeopardizing their survival. We hope for a prompt resolution of this case for our clients.”

Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a previous lower court ruling, but said Trump’s tariffs could remain in place while the administration appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the 7-4 decision, the majority said that tariff authority rests with Congress.

“That decision casts a pall of uncertainty upon ongoing foreign negotiations that the President has been pursuing through tariffs over the past five months, jeopardizing both already-negotiated framework deals and ongoing negotiations,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the administration’s Supreme Court petition. “Few cases have so clearly called out for this Court’s swift resolution.”

In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade unanimously ruled that Congress did not give the president tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. The ruling voided Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and struck down other tariffs Trump issued under the IEEPA. The administration appealed to the Federal Circuit, which ruled that Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs could remain in place while the legal challenge continued.

New tariffs raised $58.5 billion in revenue between January and June of this year before accounting for income and payroll tax offsets, according to an analysis of federal data from the Penn Wharton Budget Model. The study found that the average effective tariff rate increased to 9.14% in June from 2.2% in January, when Trump returned to office.

Trump has said he wants to use tariffs to restore manufacturing jobs lost to lower-wage countries in decades past, shift the tax burden away from U.S. families and pay down the national debt.

A tariff is a tax on imported goods paid by the person or company that imports the goods. The importer can absorb the cost of the tariffs or try to pass the cost on to consumers through higher prices.

Economists, businesses and some public companies have warned that tariffs could raise prices on a wide range of consumer products.

(The Center Square) – Taxpayers are covering rents of up to $3,879 per month in Colorado, leading taxpayer advocates to question the growing duration of federal Section 8 housing choice voucher (HCV) usage.

“Section 8 needs to focus on lifting people out of the trap of poverty, not putting them into the lap of luxury,” said National Taxpayers Union president Pete Sepp in an interview with The Center Square. “It’s unfair to ask taxpayers who can’t afford mortgages or rents of nearly $4,000 per month to foot the bill for subsidies amounting to that much.”

HCV recipients remain in the program for an average of 15.1 years – that’s up from an average of 12.4 years in 2000, according to a 2024 federal report.

When asked about a 2026 budget proposal from the Trump administration that would limit Section 8 assistance to two years, U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner recounted his meeting with a recipient whose family had been housed by the program for multiple generations.

“She’s 52 years old, she’s been living there since 1973. She’s able-bodied, able-minded. She was raised there. She lived there. Now she’s raising her children there,” Turner said in a video his office posted to X on August 25, recounting a meeting with a multi-generational federal housing recipient. “That’s three generations living on government subsidies that are able bodied, able minded.”

“Time limits are kind of an encouragement, like ‘hey, you can do this,’” Turner said. “We’re not just telling you to work, we’re going to have workforce training around you, we’re going to have skill training around you to get out of government subsidies, to live a life of self-sustainability.”

While the NYU Furman Center warns the change could push 1.1 million households out of the program, taxpayer advocates say some kind of time limits are necessary to prevent long-term – let alone intergenerational – dependency on the program. 

“Congressional overseers are right to ask a question about whether there needs to be a rational time limit,” Sepp said. “It may not be two years, but it can’t be two or three generations.”

The federally funded Section 8 housing assistance program covers up to 110% of 40th percentile rents in the local area, with recipients’ out-of-pocket costs capped at 30% their aggregate gross income (with an additional 10% if the rental includes utilities). The income can include taxpayer-funded welfare payments. 

Once admitted to Section 8, a household may use their vouchers for the program anywhere in the country, with the goal of providing recipients with “greater ability to move into ‘Opportunity Neighborhoods’ with jobs, public transportation, and good schools.”

There are now 4.6 million housing units funded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, including 2.4 million housing units  in the HCV program, which houses 5.3 million Americans.

In Colorado, the HCV program covers rents up to $3,879 per month for four-bedroom homes in the Colorado Springs ZIP codes of 80118, 80914, 80924, and 80927. 

Of the 43 available four or more bedroom homes listed for rent in these ZIP codes, all but three were below the $3,879 limit. 

In 80924, which includes Wolf Ranch, there are 28 homes with four or more bedrooms for rent, ranging from $2,099 per month to $4,250 per month, all but three of which are below the $3,879 per month limit. The median rent is $3,250 per month. One $3,250 example is a five bedroom, four bathroom, 3,790 square foot home including a home theater, bar, a large fenced-in yard, and three-car garage.

If a family with the average HCV household income — estimated by HUD to be $18,558 per year, or $1,546.5 per month, including other welfare payments — were to rent this home, the household’s out of pocket cost for the home is $463.95 per month. This would leave taxpayers on the hook for the other $2,786.05 per month in perpetuity, or until the admitted individual exits or is removed from the program. 

According to Sepp, keeping out-of-pocket costs fixed, while allowing for portability encourages households to seek out the most expensive home they can secure, instead of trying to save taxpayers money by choosing a home they could more easily afford on their own some day. 

“By fixing the out of pocket exposure, the program is defeating one of its own purposes of encouraging responsibility in housing — if you’re going to pay the same amount of money, why bother with getting somewhere that costs less?” continued Sepp. 

Should a household start to make more money than the area’s maximum Section 8 income limit — which for a five-member household in Colorado Springs is $60,750 per year — the family would be forced off the program. At $60,750 per year, a household that does not want to be rent-burdened — and thus spend no more 30% of its income on rent — could only afford rent of $1518.75 per month. That is significantly less than the up to $3,879 of taxpayer-funded value provided by Section 8. 

As a result, earning more money could cost Section 8 recipients their housing. To not be rent-burdened while paying $3,250 per month on rent, a household would need to make $130,000 per year, or more than double the income threshold at which a family would be removed from Section 8. 

“It makes no sense,” continued Sepp. “There has to be a comprehensive, data-driven adjustment to all of these benefits.”

HUD did not respond to requests for comment.

(The Center Square) – More than seven months after leaving office, President Donald Trump is revoking former Vice President Kamala Harris’s Secret Service protection detail at the taxpayers’ expense, according to multiple reports.

Former vice presidents are entitled to six months of taxpayer-funded Secret Service protection upon leaving office, according to the 2008 Former Vice President Protection Act. Former President Joe Biden extended Harris’ detail to last 18 months prior to leaving office.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney requested a six-month Secret Service protection from then-President Barack Obama, who granted the request.

The latest news of Harris’s taxpayer-funded protection revocation comes as the former vice president is about to embark on a book tour, set to visit 15 cities nationwide promoting her memoir, “107 Days,” chronicling her ill-fated, short-lived presidential campaign.

After losing her presidential bid to Trump in November, rumors swirled about her possible bid for governor of California.

In July, Harris quashed the possible candidacy, saying she was focusing on “public service.”

“But after deep reflection, I’ve decided that I will not run for governor in this election,” Harris, 60, said in her statement on X. “For now, my leadership – and public service – will not be in elected office.”

“I look forward to getting back out and listening to the American people, helping elect Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly and sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans,” she added.