Interestingly, I think the statute itself still only requires a concurrent resolution, not a joint resolution. See 50 U.S.C. § 1706(b). But this is @joshchafetz.bsky.social's bailiwick: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

This is standard. The agency will issue a proposed rule/regulation, but it typically takes a few days for it to be placed into the Federal Register, but it's when they're put into the Federal Register that they become effective. Here's another example:

So is the platinum card, which supposedly allows foreigners to not pay tax on their foreign income *and* stay up to 270 days in the United States. But once you hit 183 days, the tax code automatically treats you as a U.S. person, thereby subjecting you to U.S. tax on your worldwide income!

Yup! I imagine that this will become a regular feature of litigation moving forward.

Judge Contreras required a nominal bond from the plaintiffs in the D.D.C. IEEPA challenge case as well (presumably for this reason): www.courtlistener.com/docket/69927...

What's the case name for this one?

Recognizing that § 501(c)(3) doesn't list the environment, I'm wondering whether you think § 170(h) essentially acts as a statutory ratification of environmental concerns as being encompassed in "charitable"?

Writing a paper on this now, but there's an exception to the TAIA where the imposition of the tax is a legal impossibility. I'd argue that's the case here, since the IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs/taxes. But this probably gets litigated through the CIT / Federal Circuit.

Yup. And here I thought I was going to get a nice diversion from the real world!

Removal makes sense. Seems like the dismissal might be a closer question—if there is no legal basis to detaining a green card holder, do those officers satisfy the test for Supremacy Clause immunity? (I am far from an expert in this area, though.)

Kidnapping is a crime under New York State law, no (and therefore not pardonable)? They might offer a federal defense (some sort of immunity), and obviously kidnapping across state lines is a federal crime, but is there a reason I'm missing why the Manhattan DA couldn't bring charges here?

The current endowment tax (IRC § 4968) carves out public universities (so UT & Texas A&M unaffected). Some new proposals (e.g., Tom Cotton's WEST Act) also add an additional carve-out for religious institutions (that carve-out is really only for Notre Dame).