Posted on 05/16/2025 4:46:07 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The fix appears to be in for two court cases against President Donald Trump’s tariffs, according to a very knowledgeable source.
Last month, five domestic businesses filed a lawsuit in a little known trade court in New York challenging Trump’s tariffs, arguing they have to rely on imported goods that are not reasonably available to them in the U.S.
In his April 2 executive order imposing a set of reciprocal tariffs, Trump declared a national emergency, calling trade deficits a threat to the nation’s national security and economy.
Trump’s tariffs are central to his economic agenda and designed to reduce the trade deficits between the United States and other world powers.
A three-judge panel at the United States Court of International Trade in lower Manhattan heard arguments in the case Tuesday, and reportedly “appeared skeptical” of the president’s arguments.
If the panel decides that Trump’s emergency declaration was unlawful, it would effectively block the president’s global tariffs and upend his economic agenda.
The chief judge of the United States Court of International Trade is Mark A Barnett, who joined the court in 2013 after a nomination from President Barack Obama. He became chief judge on April 6, 2021.
According to the well-placed source, rather than drawing the panel at random, Chief Judge Barnett “fixed” the outcome by selecting three judges whom he knew would “overrule the president” and render his tariffs “null and void.”
The source told American Greatness he was given this information by “very reliable people” who are “very close to the court.”
The three judges deliberating the case are Judge Gary S. Katzmann, an Obama appointee; Judge Timothy M. Reif, a Democrat appointed by Trump in 2019; and Senior Judge Jane A. Restani, appointed by President Reagan in 1983.
The same panel is reportedly set to hear arguments “in a parallel case brought by 12 state attorneys general” on May 21.
The Courthouse News Service provided a rundown of the court proceedings on Tuesday:
Jeffrey Schwab, of the Liberty Justice Center and representing the businesses, argued Tuesday that Congress intended the 1977 statute to grant presidents the ability to regulate imports in an emergency, such as increasing inspection at ports, not impose tariffs.
He said Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs “represent an unprecedented and unlawful expansion of executive power,” noting that the U.S. has faced a slowly growing trade deficit since the turn of the century, not the sort of “unusual and extraordinary threat” required by the statute.
Restani pushed Schwab to define a standard that the court could use to decide whether Trump’s emergency declaration was lawful, but Schwab argued that a definition was unnecessary considering the unprecedented nature of the case.
“I’m asking the court to be an umpire and call a strike, and you’re asking me, ‘What’s the strike zone, is it at the knees or slightly below the knees?’” Schwab said. “I’m saying it’s a wild pitch, it’s on the other side of the batter and hit the backstop. So we don’t need to debate the difference between the strike zone.”
Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton argued that the president had clear discretion to decide the cumulative effect of the ongoing trade deficits had reached the point of emergency.
Hamilton said that the nation’s reliance on imports from other countries has made the supply chain vulnerable, potentially exposing national security risks.
Ultimately, Hamilton argued Trump’s declaration is not reviewable by the courts because it is a political question and thus only Congress could intervene.
Senate Republicans on April 30 narrowly shot down a Democrat effort to terminate Trump’s declared emergency.
The next stop in court for Trump should he lose the two cases would be the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington D.C. Further appeals could then be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Court defined boundaries under the Tariff Act of 1890, which no longer exists, and therefore is not something on which Trump relied.
As I've said elsewhere, Trump's legal argument for targeted tariffs against China and other countries is much stronger than it is for the blanket 10% tariff. That one is legally dicey.
Was there ever any doubt?
Yes, but the court rule that Congress allowed the President to set tariff rates.
Trump (we) will lose in Trade Court.
We will work around it - like everything else
Arresting judges in my view is not the answer.
The way forward is to basically appeal and ignore the rulings - treat them like
Boasberg and Xinis and the rest.
It’s obvious John Roberts is compromised.
It’s obvious that many GOP senate and house members are compromised.
It’s obvious that Trump and Bondi and Patel are acting with their future after they are out of office in mind.
If they start arresting people now - they themselves will end up in jail in 4 or 8 or 12 years.
They tried to kill the guy twice - that we know of.
For all we know Roberts may have been threatened.
My opinion is that the FBI - as in the J Edgar era has everything- including
Kash - on lockdown.
How else can one reconcile two assassination attempts, the Covid hoax,
Russia, Russia hoax, hunters laptop, joint chiefs conspiring behind Trumps back, J6, election fraud , congressional insider trading, etc.
all of this is right there and there is plenty of evidence- but no one has been
charged with anything.
Stalemate.
NY court, like who didn’t see this coming?
Ya think?
The left screams and cries that Trump is trying to be a king, but then they try to make him just like the figurehead UK monarch, who has no political power.
THE problem is Judges all over the country are now assuming they can override Presidential EOs and the US SUPREME COURT sits and lets the clock run out.
CHECKS and BALANCES were created to resolve these issues not to find an endless number of ways to avoid confronting them.
Wasn't it Andrew Jackson who asked how big an army the US SUPREME COURT had? We seem to be headed in that direction again. I hope not.
The Court ruled that the statute permitted the President to set specific tariffs based on specific authorizations in that specific statute. The Court did NOT say that the President gets to set whatever tariff he likes without such a statute. The statute in that case was repealed two years later - in 1894 - so Trump obviously can't rely upon the same statute now.
New statutes, new tariffs, new case. That's how it works.
Maybe, maybe not. Just have to find a friendly judge like the Libs do….
“Last month, five domestic businesses filed a lawsuit in a little known trade court in New York challenging Trump’s tariffs, arguing they have to rely on imported goods that are not reasonably available to them in the U.S.”
Tough. That’s their problem.
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.