Former NJ Judge Calls Trump's Iran War End Notification a 'Frivolous' Legal Loophole
Andrew Napolitano says White House misreads War Powers Resolution statute; claims ceasefire does not reset 60-day deadline
L'essentiel
- Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano called President Trump's May 1 notification to Congress about ending the war with Iran a 'frivolous' and 'farcical' legal loophole.
- The White House claims a ceasefire resets the 60-day period under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, but Napolitano says this misreads the statute, which uses 'introduction' not 'ceasefire'.
- He noted the 60-day period expired May 1 and Congress denying approval by doing nothing means military operations must wind down.
Résumé généré par IA
WASHINGTON, May 2. /TASS correspondent Dmitry Kirsanov/. US President Donald Trump's notification to Congress on the end of the war with Iran is an attempt at a legal loophole, US analyst and blogger Andrew Napolitano told TASS. "I think it's frivolous [in legal terms] and farcical," said the former New Jersey Superior Court judge, commenting on the White House's letter on the end of hostilities with Iran, sent to the leadership of the House of Representatives and the Senate on May 1.
Napolitano said the letter rests on the theory that a ceasefire resets the 60-day period during which the US executive branch may use military force abroad without Congressional approval. "But this is based on a misreading of the statute," the expert noted. "The statute says 60 days from the introduction of the military. That's the word in the statute, 'introduction', to prevent this very type of resetting that President Trump and Secretary [of War Pete] Hegseth have come up with," Napolitano said.
He noted that the 60-day period of the US military operation against Iran without Congressional approval expired on May 1. "Congress doesn't need to do anything. By doing nothing, it is, under the statute, denying its approval. So theoretically, under the law, starting today, he must begin to wind them down (military operations against Iran - TASS). He's not doing it because he doesn't respect the law and he doesn't respect the Constitution," the analyst added.
According to Napolitano, the US legislative branch cannot turn to the judiciary in an attempt to resolve the situation. "If Congress were to sue the President, a single member of Congress, Rand Paul, for example, or Thomas Massie, were to sue the President, the courts would refuse to hear the lawsuit," the analyst said. He noted that this matter would fall under the political question doctrine in US constitutional law, which holds that courts deal only with legal, not political, disputes.
The expert noted that the last such case involved then-President Jimmy Carter, when Senator Barry Goldwater filed a lawsuit in 1979 in an attempt to prevent the United States from returning the Panama Canal to Panama. "The Supreme Court took the case, but said it's a political question, meaning it is for the other two branches to decide," he said.
On May 1, the American leader formally notified the US Congress that the White House considers the war with Iran to be over, citing a ceasefire that took effect on April 7 and was later extended. However, the move appeared to be driven mainly by the need to comply with national legislation governing the use of the US military in conflicts overseas. Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, the executive branch of the US government cannot deploy US forces abroad for over 60 days without the approval of the legislative branch. May 1 marked the 60th day of the war with Iran, and the White House had not sought approval from Congress to continue participation in the conflict. Under the US Constitution, the power to declare war lies with Congress, not the president.
