A lesser-known principle, the "equal sovereignty" doctrine, posits that Congress cannot treat states unequally without compelling reason. While used to strike down parts of the Voting Rights Act, states could invoke it to argue they are being unfairly punished or targeted by a hostile federal administration.

The legal theory previously used to strike down some of President Biden's policies is now being applied to Donald Trump's tariffs. The Court argues that for economically significant actions, the president needs explicit congressional authorization, which the 1977 law cited lacks.

President Trump's executive order establishes a Department of Justice task force with the sole purpose of challenging state AI laws deemed 'overly burdensome'. This moves beyond policy guidance to creating a dedicated legal strike team to enforce federal preemption through lawsuits against states.

Despite the Supreme Court striking down his tariff authority under one law, Trump will likely find a new legal justification to continue imposing them. The economic leverage tariffs provide for international negotiations is too valuable for his administration to relinquish, signaling a potential constitutional conflict.

When Congress fails to act on a major crisis, executive agencies may stretch their existing legal authorities to address the problem (e.g., the COVID eviction moratorium). This often leads to legal challenges and accusations of overreach that stem from legislative paralysis.

The legal battle over President Trump's tariffs and President Biden's student loan forgiveness both hinge on the "major questions doctrine." This Supreme Court principle asserts that if the executive branch exercises a power with vast economic and political impact based on ambiguous statutory language, the Court will rule against it, demanding explicit authorization from Congress.

The new executive order on AI regulation does not establish a national framework. Instead, its primary function is to create a "litigation task force" to sue states and threaten to withhold funding, effectively using federal power to dismantle state-level AI safety laws and accelerate development.

Rather than reacting after the fact, a coalition of Democratic state Attorneys General has been actively planning and preparing legal challenges based on potential Trump administration actions detailed in documents like Project 2025. They aim to have complaints ready to file immediately, ensuring they are not "caught flat-footed."

The conflict between state and federal governments is moving beyond rhetoric into "soft secession." This involves states actively refusing to cooperate with the federal government on a practical level, such as withholding tax revenues, representing a significant escalation in political brinksmanship.