Posted on 11/05/2025 8:52:52 PM PST by SeekAndFind
In the most significant economic case to reach the Supreme Court in years, Trump’s authority to issue emergency tariffs faced deep skepticism from key conservatives — including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
• While justices had tough questions for both sides, a majority expressed reservations about the administration relying on declared emergencies to issue the unchecked tariffs.
• As plaintiffs presented their case, Kavanaugh repeatedly noted that courts had previously allowed then-President Richard Nixon to use similar emergency powers to impose tariffs during his administration.
• Both sides previously framed the appeal in existential terms, with Trump warning that a ruling against him could have “catastrophic” consequences for the nation’s economic health. The companies challenging the policy say the on-again-off-again tariff announcements have driven costs — and uncertainty — to intolerable levels.
Former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said Wednesday he expected “a split decision” from the Supreme Court on whether President Donald overstepped his authority in implementing global tariffs.
The main arguments made by those challenging the tariffs were that “tariffs… are equivalent to a tax but taxing authority is reserved to Congress,” and that emergency powers allow for license fees to be imposed, “which also could be construed as a tax,” Ross told CNN after arguments ended.
“I would be extremely surprised if the Court would rely on such nit-picking to create chaos in international trade and the securities markets,” Ross said, “especially since in most cases the other country has agreed to pay them and to lower the tariffs on our exports to them.”
“My guess is that it will be a split decision that, at most, will knock out a few of the specific ones,” Ross said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Tariffs are not taxes
Tariffs are charged to those outside the jurisdiction of the United States
Tariffs keep the wealth inside the US, instead of wealth transferred to foreign lands
A US Citizen is free to purchase anything from around the world. So long as excess profits of that purchase remain in the US
Likely
The U.S. collected approximately $215 billion in tariff revenue so far in the 2025 fiscal year, with a record-setting $195 billion total for the fiscal year ending in September.
The left will have none of the bussiness going on it makes communism look bad.
Per the constitution, tarrifs are controlled by Congress. It is equivalent to a tax.
If Trump loses in court, he should ask Congress to ratify the trade agreements that he negotiated while the tariffs were in effect.
How is this the business of 9 idiots of the judicial branch?
you make good points with which I agree.
One question asked of the plaintiffs was, and I paraphrase, “Can the President embargo shipments into the United States, but can’t impose a one dollar tariff?
The plaintiff said, “Yes”. That was quite the admission.
One the surface, many reporters seem to think Trump is going to lose based on the question of the Solicitor General. The questioning of the plaintiffs was even more harsh.
One should never read too much into oral arguments.
My view is that Trump will prevail by a 6-3, or 5-4 margin.
What time do you go on CNN?
The POTUS. can impose an embargo but yet not a tariff? Defies any common sense.
You point out the hypocrisy of the deficit hawk free traitors.
One sided free trade that you love is classic Marxism.
The stock market is falling now! SCOTUS stop this nonsense sensical attack.
RE: How is this the business of 9 idiots of the judicial branch?
Well, like it it or not we have a Supreme Court that determines whether a President is using his powers in accordance with the constitution.
Multiple parties filed lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s use of emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs—most notably the states of Oregon and Arizona, along with 10 other states and several small businesses.
Imagine a President using his emergency powers to impose taxes to fight climate change, is that not usurping the role of Congress?
THAT is the business of the 9 so-called “idiots” — in this case, to decide whether the constitution explicitly authorized tariff powers to the President or Congress when he declares an issue a national emergency; IEEPA lacks such clarity on whether or not the constitution limits the President’s power.
Except congress has delegated trade and tariff authority to the POTUS in at least three bills that I can think off.
I think the forces of evil (Dems and GOP) are coming together to block Trump..
The only concern in this particular case is Trump’s team invoked the IEEPA, a bill passed in 1977 that authorizes the President to act in Response to national emergencies from foreign threats.
The IEEPA allows the President to Regulate or block transactions, freeze assets—not explicitly tariffs. It is Primarily used for sanctions (e.g., Iran, Russia), not tariffs.
I think the more appropriate law would be to invoke Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974). The purpose of that is to Address unfair foreign trade practices.
Trade Act Section 301 allows Tariffs, quotas, sanctions, and other trade remedies, BUT it Requires findings and procedures by US Trade Representative (USTR); subject to judicial review.
Section 301 is designed for economic retaliation, especially when foreign nations violate trade agreements or engage in discriminatory practices. It explicitly allows the President to impose duties and restrictions on imports.
Courts have consistently upheld Section 301 actions when properly executed.
If President Trump had invoked Section 301 instead of IEEPA, the legal footing would have been stronger, the statutory intent clearer, and the risk of reversal lower. The choice of IEEPA has become a flashpoint in lawsuits, with plaintiffs arguing it bypasses congressional limits on taxation and trade policy.
From the Whitehouse.gov website:
-PJ
I think that is the fallback plan.
What do you think Bessent or Lutnick could have said?
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.