Posted on 05/12/2025 5:44:35 AM PDT by Red Badger
On Tuesday, May 13, the U.S. Court of International Trade will hear oral arguments in the case of V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump. This case challenges the legality of certain tariffs imposed on imported goods, raising important questions about the scope of executive authority and the impact of trade policy on American businesses.
During the hearing, Jeffrey Schwab, Senior Counsel and Director of Litigation at Liberty Justice Center, will argue that the tariffs exceed the President’s statutory authority and violate constitutional protections for businesses engaged in international trade.
WHO:
Jeffrey Schwab, Senior Counsel and Director of Litigation for the Liberty Justice Center
WHEN:
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
11:00 a.m. ET
WHERE:
U.S. Court of International Trade
Courtroom 1
One Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
HOW:
The courtroom will be open to the public on a first come, first serve basis. For questions about media access, contact the Clerk’s Office at (212) 264-2800. Information concerning public access via teleconference to the hearing will be forthcoming. Please visit this webpage for future updates.
https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/upcoming-court-proceedings-accessible-teleconference
Jeffrey Schwab, along with Senior Counsel Reilly Stephens and Co-Counsel Ilya Somin will be available for comment in-person immediately after the hearing. Liberty Justice Center will also be hosting a virtual media roundtable on Tuesday, May 13, at 2:30 PM ET for any interested media outlets. Please RSVP at the link here.
ISSUE BACKGROUND:
V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump challenges the President’s invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify the “Liberation Day” tariffs. Under IEEPA, the President may invoke emergency economic powers only after declaring an emergency in response to an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security, foreign policy, or the U.S. economy originating outside the United States. The lawsuit argues that the President exceeded his legal authority by imposing tariffs beyond what Congress authorized and that the executive branch’s actions violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. The President’s justification—a trade deficit in goods—is neither an emergency nor an unusual or extraordinary threat.
V.O.S. Selections, Inc., a New York-based wine importer, is among the five small businesses the Liberty Justice Center is representing who have been harmed by these tariffs, which have increased costs and disrupted supply chains. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the limits of executive power.
The legal filing in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump is available here.
https://libertyjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/002-VOS-Selections-v.-Trump-Compl-2025.04.14-1.pdf
The outcome depends on the Federal Judge they shopped for.
The Drunken U.S. Court of International Trade will go against Trump you can bet on that ,LOL
Not necessarily.
They sided with Trump last month........temporarily..........
Aren’t tariffs imposed on the nation?
It is up to the nation to deal with the internal costs such as taxes, charge-backs and price increases.
I don’t see where VOS Selections has standing.
They aren’t a nation unto themselves.
Drunken U.S. Court of International Trade = Drunk on power
Libs don’t need ‘standing’ because this is not about law, it is lawfare and destruction of President Trump!
Has a major donor ($8 million) with business ties to China….
https://www.usconstitution.net/executive-tariff-authority/
/.
dot.net so it must be true .
Snort.
Bwa ha ha ha.
.
“The lawsuit argues that the Administration’s justification— a trade deficit in goods—is neither an emergency nor an unusual or extraordinary threat. Trade deficits have existed for decades, and do not constitute a national emergency or threat to security.”
Trade deficits have to be made up for by injecting money into the economy. This is normally done by deficit spending as there is a desire to get something for the injected money.
Credit card companies put balance limits on credit cards.
Mortgage companies put limits on the amount people can get a mortgage for based on their income and credit history.
The EU has long had a 60% of GDP cap on member nation national debt.
There are many emergencies on the nation’s highways every day. Most don’t result in deformed metal. The driver should apply the brakes (and turn the steering wheel) to avoid the crash. President Trump is in the drivers’ seat.
It should be borne in mind that a 10% devaluation is economically the same as a 10% tariff as far as importers are concerned. Devaluations of more than 10% are possible.
“50 years ago this weekend the Government announced that the pound would be devalued by 14%. This decision – previously politically unthinkable – was taken after fending off a number of earlier currency crises.”
“Chancellor James Callaghan released a statement at 9.30pm on Saturday 18 November 1967 stating that the Government had decided to lower the exchange rate from $2.80 to $2.40 per £1, a 14.3% change. Interest rates were raised from 6.5% to 8.0%, cuts to defence budget announced, and banks and the stock exchanges would be closed on Monday.”
“Prime Minister Harold Wilson gave an address on TV and radio to the nation....He railed at the “successive waves of speculation against sterling”, and said no international loan could be agreed given the conditions on economic policy that may be attached to them.”
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/pound-in-your-pocket-devaluation-50-years-on/
Remember a 14% devaluation has a greater impact than a tariff increase to 10%.
Watch Season 3 of “The Crown” to see why trade deficits matter.
Your comment is nonsense. “.net” is merely a domain address rather than .com, .gov, .org, .....
It has nothing to do with the credibility of the content...
“Snort.
Bwa ha ha ha.”
What is your logical intelligent response?
“There MUST be a level playing field for trade to be both fair and free.”
Are you willing to work for Chinese wages?
Is your school district willing to accept 800 Mexican pesos for your annual school tax?
There is no level playing field.
Trade needs to be financially balanced insomuch as possible and desirable.
Imagine a Korean car parked near you - what unfairness was involved? The Korean CEO, what did he do wrong? Mr. Kim, the machinist in Seoul, what did he do wrong?
We are often impoverishing our fellow citizens to get very minor, less than 10% comparative advantages.
“The Chilean standard VAT rate is 19.0%, which is close to the OECD average.”
OECD via google
“The Drunken U.S. Court of International Trade will go against Trump you can bet on that ,LOL”
I want Congress to do its job rather than have Trump try to use politically created tools that are ill-fitted for the jobs that need to be done.
“If they prevail, I guess, it would be on Congress to set tariffs?
Good luck with that!”
The Constitution gives only Congress the power to tax. Tariffs are a tax.
Many of the ills of our nation are due to the ineptitude and disfunction of Congress in the modern era. The absence of a viable budget process, the escalating national debt, the incomprehensibly complex tax system, the oppressive regulatory state, and the out of control judiciary below the Supreme Court are all products of Congressional actions or failures to act.
The many failures of the legislative branch have resulted in the Executive and Judicial branches moving outside their responsibilities as described in the Constitution. The more those branches drive outside their lanes the less the Constitution, and rule of law, means in this country. Ultimately the result will corruption throughout the government and judicial system, and the loss of public trust in the system. The lack of public faith in government resulted in chaos and anarchy which is usually ended with the imposition of a tyrannical government.
You idiots! Cannot you see that the tariffs are negotiating TOOLS???
Yes, that’s all they are................
The appeal to authority fallacy, also known as argumentum ad verecundiam or argument from authority, is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone relies on the authority or reputation of a person to validate a claim, rather than presenting evidence or reasoning. It’s a flawed way of arguing because simply because someone is an authority doesn’t automatically mean their statements are true or that their expertise applies to the specific claim being made.
Here’s a breakdown:
What it is:
The fallacy involves using the opinion of an expert or authority figure as proof for a claim.
It assumes that if someone is an authority, their statements are inherently credible and worthy of belief.
It’s a type of informal fallacy, meaning it’s a flaw in the reasoning or structure of an argument, not a mistake in the logic itself.
Why it’s a fallacy:
Authority figures are not always experts in every field.
Experts can have biases or be wrong.
People may be more willing to accept a claim from an authority figure, even if it’s unsupported by evidence.
It can lead to overconfidence in the authority’s opinion and underestimation of the need for evidence.
You don’t want to argue logical fallacies with this guy.
I taught the subject at the university.
Your first reply was a logical fallacy.
Second, your appeal to authority fallacy does not hold up when I am quoting substantial authority, including US Supreme Court decisions and other court cases while also quoting the actual law, not a person in authority.
Sorry to sound condescending, but you started this with a silly Bwaaa statement.
Sorry to sound condescending
/
No you aren’t , it’s standard sop and mo of academia.
And you’ve now done the appeal twice.
Your ‘ evidence’ is as accurate as the narrative control cubicle deems, and it wouldn’t be the first time academia or media or professors misrepresented the supreme Court opinions.
The s.c. has been pulling things out of their penumbra A LOT lately.
My scorn is richly deserved.
Libertarians for all intents and purposes are just democrats. Everything they support help the democrat agenda and hurst America...
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.