UPDATE: Supreme Court Issues Public Statement Through its Public Information Office Saying Donald Trump’s Military Attack on Venezuela and Arrest of Maduro Was Carried Out Without Congressional Approval, Violating Article I, Section 8 and the War Power Acts of the U.S. Constitution which is Illegal and Impeachable, Orders Swift Investigation READ MORE 👇

Supreme Court Issues Public Statement Through its Public Information Office Saying Donald Trump’s Military Attack on Venezuela and Arrest of Maduro Was Carried Out Without Congressional Approval, Violating Article I, Section 8 and the War Power Acts of the U.S. Constitution which is Illegal and Impeachable, Orders Swift Investigation

Supreme Court Says Trump’s Venezuela Attack Violated the Constitution, Launches Investigation

Washington, D.C. — The United States Supreme Court has issued a rare and forceful public statement condemning President Donald Trump’s decision to carry out military action against Venezuela without congressional authorization, calling the move unconstitutional, illegal, and a potential basis for impeachment.

In a statement released through the Court’s Public Information Office, the justices said the president’s unilateral action violated Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress — not the president — the exclusive power to declare war. The Court also cited violations of the War Powers Act, which requires presidents to consult and receive approval from Congress before engaging in hostilities, except in narrowly defined emergency situations.

“The Constitution is explicit,” the statement said. “The authority to initiate war rests with the legislative branch. Any military action undertaken without congressional approval, absent an imminent threat, exceeds presidential authority and undermines the separation of powers.”

According to the Court, President Trump neither sought authorization from Congress nor formally notified lawmakers before ordering the attack, a failure the justices described as a “clear breach of constitutional procedure.” The statement emphasized that adherence to legal process is not optional, even for the commander in chief.

Legal analysts say the Supreme Court’s unusually direct language signals the seriousness of the issue. While the Court typically avoids public commentary on ongoing political matters, this intervention suggests concern over what it described as a growing erosion of constitutional checks and balances.