Trump's Tariffs in Court (SCOTUS rules tariffs invalid) (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

Sendai

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2024
Messages
1,957
Reaction score
1,095
Age
75
Location
USA
Online

“The first federal court hearing on Trump’s tariffs did not go so well for Trump​

Much of the hearing focused on whether Richard Nixon can save Trump’s tariffs.”

“A federal court held the very first hearing on President Donald Trump’s wide-ranging, so-called Liberation Day tariffs on Tuesday, offering the earliest window into whether those tariffs — and potentially all of the shifting tariffs Trump has imposed since he retook office — will be struck down. The case is V.O.S. Selections v. Trump.
It is unclear how the three-judge panel that heard the case will rule, but it appears somewhat more likely than not that they will rule that the tariffs are unlawful.”

“At the heart of V.O.S. Selections are four key words in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), the statute Trump relied on when he imposed these tariffs.
That statute permits the president to “regulate” transactions involving foreign goods — a verb which Yoshida held is expansive enough to permit tariffs — but only “to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.” It is likely that the trade court’s decision will turn on what the words “unusual and extraordinary threat” means. While Yoshida offered guidance on “regulate,” there appears to be few, if any, precedents interpreting what those four words mean.”


This should be interesting.
 

“The first federal court hearing on Trump’s tariffs did not go so well for Trump​

Much of the hearing focused on whether Richard Nixon can save Trump’s tariffs.”

“A federal court held the very first hearing on President Donald Trump’s wide-ranging, so-called Liberation Day tariffs on Tuesday, offering the earliest window into whether those tariffs — and potentially all of the shifting tariffs Trump has imposed since he retook office — will be struck down. The case is V.O.S. Selections v. Trump.
It is unclear how the three-judge panel that heard the case will rule, but it appears somewhat more likely than not that they will rule that the tariffs are unlawful.”

“At the heart of V.O.S. Selections are four key words in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), the statute Trump relied on when he imposed these tariffs.
That statute permits the president to “regulate” transactions involving foreign goods — a verb which Yoshida held is expansive enough to permit tariffs — but only “to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.” It is likely that the trade court’s decision will turn on what the words “unusual and extraordinary threat” means. While Yoshida offered guidance on “regulate,” there appears to be few, if any, precedents interpreting what those four words mean.”


This should be interesting.

Yeah I'm waiting to hear administration's explanation on what is the "national emergency"
 
1771600001511.png


1771600065493.png


1771600180429.png


1771600228582.png


1771600311517.png


1771600372972.png


1771600421940.png


1771600462499.png
 
A few take aways:

1. This is a broad, fundamental rejection of Trump's assertion that (1) the president has unilateral tariff authority and (2) that the president can declare that certain conditions amount to war and that gives him additional latitude. This means not only that Trump's assertion of tariff authority under the IPEEA is invalid, but that any tariff must have direct congressional authority - either by Congress itself or by unambiguous statutory authority. (In other words, Trump can't just pivot to offer some other ambiguous basis for his tariffs).

2. This is (finally) a firm decision by the Court that the Constitution's orientation of roles and powers does remain in place and Trump cannot change them.

Now, this only applies to the taxation question but it is significant. Trump can't go taxing things and creating his own pile of money to use as he wishes.
 
Last edited:
wait til we see how mad he will be.

he hosting Republican Gov meeting and sent out press with no questions.

you can hear reporters shouting about tariff and look at his face.

 
so what happens to all the tariff money already paid?


good question. i would expect the Admin to say they "spent them" - sorry.

It should be refunded in a perfect world. Its why COSTCO filed suit back in Dec to be first in line.



oh and sorry in advance to Iran. We will be striking them real soon on the heels of this info
 
6-3, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

Wonder what spurious reasoning they came up with for the dissent...

The crux of the main dissent (Kavanaugh joined by Alito and Thomas) is that the terms of the IPEEA do provide a basis to impose tariffs. The Roberts decision criticizes this at numerous points - essentially stating that Congress cannot so ambiguously delegate taxation power.

1771601518943.png



Thomas adds to say that president historically has power to impose import duties:

1771601391511.png
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Back
Top Bottom