Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trade and legal experts see up to 80% odds that the Supreme Court will rule against Trump’s global tariffs
Fortune ^ | 10/4/2025 | Jason Ma

Posted on 10/10/2025 11:15:32 AM PDT by Poison Pill

The Supreme Court will likely agree with lower courts that ruled President Donald Trump can’t use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose broad tariffs, according experts surveyed by JPMorgan.

Trade and legal experts said the odds that the high court will rule against the Trump administration are 70%-80% and expect a decision by the end of the year

(Excerpt) Read more at fortune.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: article2; bookmark; commerce; commiepropaganda; economy; fakenews; scotus; tariffs; tds; trade
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 last
To: central_va

You aren’t even aware of the law in question.


61 posted on 10/10/2025 3:24:24 PM PDT by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill
You are restating what is called the non-delegation doctrine.

However, in J.W. Hampton v. United States (1928): The Supreme Court ruled that if Congress delegates authority to the executive branch, it must provide an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch's discretion.

The intelligible principle test also includes a Test for Discretion: This test focuses on whether Congress has laid down a clear standard for the executive branch to follow when implementing the law.

Weakened Federal Application: In practice, courts often find that Congress has provided a sufficient limiting principle, even in broadly written laws, which has led to the doctrine's decline in federal courts.

62 posted on 10/10/2025 3:29:58 PM PDT by jpp113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill

Experts agreed in 2016: “Trump will never be president.”
Experts agreed in 2020: “Our elections are fair and accurate.”
Experts agreed in 2021: “The jab is safe and effective.”
Experts agreed in 2024: “Biden will win the debate.”


63 posted on 10/10/2025 3:43:36 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (“Columbus Day! We're back, Italians! We love the Italians, okay?” Trump said. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpp113

The IEEPA does not mention tariffs. So, how clear can the standard be? The lower courts think not very.


64 posted on 10/10/2025 3:59:13 PM PDT by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

The question of the year.


65 posted on 10/10/2025 3:59:43 PM PDT by daler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

Why bother electing a Congress then?


66 posted on 10/10/2025 4:06:43 PM PDT by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

First, I don’t like tariffs or the way Trump has used them. His first premise, the chart and formula for trade imbalance and tariffs was at best deceptive.

Second, I can’t recall a single tariff initiated and voted on for administration management in at least the last 50 years. Instead all were done as presidential actions. I have been involved directly with defensive tariffs on oilfield tubular goods and they always permanently raised prices. They are often like tax management, to punish enemies and favor friends.

I hardly see tariffs as an exclusive province of Congress. I have not even seen Congress take tariff action in memory. A quick look at tariff history does not mention any Congressional bills on tariffs since Smoot Hawley about 1930. There certainly have been a lot of tariff actions since 1930. That hardly supports any idea that tariffs are the exclusive province of Congress. Even though I don’t care for how Trump has used tariffs precedent shows he is within his rights.


67 posted on 10/10/2025 6:07:26 PM PDT by Sequoyah101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101
Second, I can’t recall a single tariff initiated and voted on for administration management in at least the last 50 years. Instead all were done as presidential actions. I have been involved directly with defensive tariffs on oilfield tubular goods and they always permanently raised prices. They are often like tax management, to punish enemies and favor friends.

I hardly see tariffs as an exclusive province of Congress. I have not even seen Congress take tariff action in memory. A quick look at tariff history does not mention any Congressional bills on tariffs since Smoot Hawley about 1930.

That's false - Congress has passed more than a half dozen laws regarding tariffs since Smoot-Hawley. For example, there's the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984, etc..

The issue is NOT whether the President has the authority to impose any tariffs under federal law. He clearly does, and many tariffs are not being challenged in court because everyone acknowledges that Congress expressly delegated certain tariff authority to the President via various laws.

What is at issue are the specific, and incredibly broad, tariffs imposed under the IEEPA. Trump is the very first President to attempt to impose tariffs under that law, which doesn't even mention tariffs, taxes or duties. But he used the IEEPA rather than other statutes because all those other statutes imposed some limits on what tariffs the President could impose. He wanted to impose broad tariffs not authorized under any statute, so he turned to the IEEPA.

So whether Presidents previously have imposed certain limited tariffs pursuant to specific delegations of authority isn't relevant. What's relevant is whether they can be imposed under the IEEPA, specifically.

And if I was a betting man, my bet is SCOTUS will, quite rightly, conclude that he cannot.

68 posted on 10/10/2025 7:23:56 PM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

Well, he picked the right one.


69 posted on 10/10/2025 9:08:53 PM PDT by Sequoyah101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson