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.

In its statement, the Court confirmed that it will review the legal circumstances surrounding the Venezuela operation, including whether executive authority was improperly expanded and whether federal law was knowingly disregarded. While the Court does not have the power to impeach a president, its findings could play a critical role in future congressional action.

Members of Congress from both parties reacted swiftly. Several lawmakers described the ruling as a “constitutional alarm bell,” with some openly calling the conduct impeachable. Others urged restraint, saying Congress must now carefully examine the Court’s findings and determine appropriate next steps.

“The Supreme Court has made one thing clear,” said one senior lawmaker. “No president is above the Constitution, and no military action is lawful without accountability.”

The White House has not yet issued a formal response to the statement. However, allies of the president have argued in the past that executive authority allows swift military action in the interest of national security — a claim the Court appeared to directly reject.

As the investigation proceeds, the ruling has reignited a national debate over presidential war powers and the limits of executive authority. Constitutional scholars say the outcome could have lasting implications, not only for the Trump presidency but for how future presidents engage in military action abroad.

For now, the Supreme Court’s message is unmistakable: the rule of law applies even at the highest level of power — and violating it carries consequences.