Posted on 11/04/2025 10:08:54 AM PST by lasereye
I wrote here and here about the federal lawsuit that challenges President Trump’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose most of his tariffs, including his worldwide “reciprocal” tariffs. The case, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. et al. v. Trump, originated in the Court of International Trade, which held 3-0 that the challenged tariffs were not authorized by Congress. That decision was upheld on a 7-4 vote by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case is now in the Supreme Court, where it will be argued tomorrow. The New York Post covers the Supreme Court proceeding, with assessments from “experts.”
The courts that have ruled against the Trump administration are not composed of partisan, Democratic hacks. These are top-notch judges of both parties who have written thoughtful opinions. I have not done a deep analysis of the legal issues, but reading the decisions, it seemed to me that the judges in the majority, those who have found Trump’s tariffs to be unauthorized, have had the better of the argument. There is no question about the fact that Article I of the Constitution gives control over tariff to Congress. The question is whether the various statutes that have been enacted are broad enough to support the current tariff regime.
Most observers think the case, in the Supreme Court, is too close to call. So far in his second term, Trump has done well in the Court. But those have generally been cases where partisan Democratic judges have issued extraordinary orders, that have been heard by the Supreme Court in a preliminary phase. Basically, the Court has held, a number of times, that the federal courts are not going to take over the running of the Executive Branch while various cases wend their way through the judicial process.
This case is different. We will see here a final ruling on the merits.
One important question is, if the tariffs are held to exceed presidential authority, does the government have to refund the $90 billion it has collected in customs duties? Or is there a way for the Court to make its ruling prospective?
Regardless of how the Court rules, Trump has gotten a lot of benefit from the tariffs he has implemented. They have been the basis for negotiating trade agreements with a number of important countries. If the Court now holds that the tariffs were not authorized by statute, it won’t affect the validity of the trade agreements. It will mean that Trump bluffed, successfully. I think uncertainty over the fate of the tariffs in the Supreme Court has motivated President Trump to conclude as many trade agreements as he can; likely he will try to do some more between tomorrow and when the Court’s decision is announced, likely in June.
In my opinion, the best case scenario might be for the Court to hold, but only prospectively, that the tariffs in question were not authorized. We would be left with a number of favorable trade agreements in place, but without the uncertainty and market volatility that result from the fact that tariffs might be imposed at any time by executive fiat.
Congress overall has become a Do-Nothing institution. Personally think they all need to be drug tested.
Congress doesn't have to negotiate anything. They have to ratify it.
You have to deal with how the tariffs actually work in the real world.
What fantasy world do you occupy?
Do you really believe that: Energy prices have no impact. Law suits dont drive up prices. Armies of corporate lawyers, accountants, HR people, don’t have an impact. Driving the auto industry off the EV cliff, no impact. Appliances that don’t work because of energy regs, no impact? Emissions regulations don’t have an impact?
You are right though, there is no price impact on goods no longer produced here.
In the 70’s Emissions and safety regs along with idiotic energy rules nearly handed the auto industry to the Japs. Steel has been killed by enviro regs and energy prices. Ditto paper making and plastics manufacturing.
Why don’t you think for just a minute about the goods driven out of existence or priced higher then needed thanks to governemt policies we cannot buy talcum powder at any price. Roundup just got a lot more expensive oh but farmers just absorb the cost.
Fertilizer, a hydrocarbon product,drives food prices but I suppose in your world high energy prices don’t impact prices to consumers.
“ most corporations like the regs to keep out the small competition from starting up.”
And why do they like having less competitors? In your world is it because less competition has no impact on prices? Or even less competitor. Means lower prices? Can’t wait to hear your logic.
Since I am told we are a nation of consumers the retail price of a toaster oven is not going to vary if the factory is charged 12 cents kwh vs 16 cents kWh for electricity. Or if it costs 1% more to follow osha rules. America wants their jobs back not increase the producers margin. It’s not the job of us workers to sacrifice their jobs , upend their life to increase the profit margin from 6% to 7%.
You would know.
Also, as I understood the discussion, using tariffs as part of diplomatic efforts is a legal tool. You may not like what Trump does with tariffs but the conclusion is they are legal, but questionable in this case. In this case however had Trump used some of his other tools, the damage to those whining small business owners would be far more expensive. What Trump did may have been capricious but it was the least damaging to the economy. Not a lawyer, too much self respect, so I maybe totally off base but that is what I got from what I read.
Which is why SCOTUS should simply rule that while the use of tariffs in this case is questionable, it is Congress not the Courts who must reign in the Executive. Congress passed vague ambiguous rules that allowed Trump to interpret them as he did. He knew he was out on a limb and could lose at SCOTUS, but he argued he used powers delegated to him as he interpreted the rules. Congress is responsible for removing the power to enact tariffs not the courts. This is one reason this country is AFU, elected officials in both parties grow rich by screwing us over. They leave the difficult part of their job to the unelected Judges..
“...this country is AFU...”
Unfortunately TRUE.
Your suggestion for action is nicely nuanced.
If Traitor Roberts were so inclined to save his Legacy, he could gin up a way to let Congress and The Executive battle it out without participation from the Courts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.