Trump tariffs ruled illegal
AOG
Member Posts: 2,304
Discuss
Trade court agreed that Trump exceeded his authority to impose tariffs
Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, is one of the lawyers who filed the successful suit against Trump’s tariffs on behalf of five US businesses that import goods.
In a response to the sweeping victory on Wednesday in the US Court of International Trade, which ruled that all of Trump’s tariffs are illegal and must be removed, Somin wrote in a post on the legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy that the three-judge panel had agreed with him that the president simply does not have the authority to impose tariffs without the consent of Congress.
Somin drew attention to this part of the court’s unanimous opinion:
The Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 1, 3. The question in the two cases before the court is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (“IEEPA”) delegates these powers to the President in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country the court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder.
“From the very beginning”, Somin wrote, "“I have contended that the virtually limitless nature of the authority claimed by Trump is a key reason why courts must strike down the tariffs.”
Comments
The other good news today: that fucking prick Musk quit government
Guy who whines about Trump being an autocrat applauds an unelected judge running executive branch policy.
Get fucked, Retard.
Lol you are such an npc.
You think you won something?
Your girlfriends now claim DOGE didn't do anything
Your violent opposition didn't stop shit
Whoosh!
Chrissey very nearly stumbled over the point.
Not an executive power. Legislative.
And executive
Lies are all you have
Is Trump the first president to initiate tariffs?
Wrong as always.
Can’t wait to see HMatlock dissect this ridiculous ruling in his support of it.
I prefer "deranged radical left lunatic" for any judge who rules against him
You need a period at the end of your sentence.
Since you’ve obviously already read it, explain why it’s ridiculous.
The Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 1, 3. The question in the two cases before the court is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (“IEEPA”) delegates these powers to the President in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world. The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder.
Sounds pretty radical!
Tbf I'm cool with reining in the executive.
The left isn't though.
”Nearly every country in the world” seems like solid technical reasoning!
Thanks for the reminder on how you posted a KJB dissent as some sort of legal ruling. Quite the attorney here.
But you were going to tell what struck you as the most ridiculous when you read the opinion. Go ahead.
The Government’s “pressure” argument effectively concedes that the direct effect of the country-specific tariffs is simply to burden the countries they target. It is the prospect of mitigating this burden, the Government explains, that will induce the target countries to crack down on trafficking within their jurisdictions. See Gov’t Resp. to Oregon Mots. at 39. But however sound this might be as a diplomatic strategy, it does not comfortably meet the statutory definition of “deal[ing] with” the cited emergency. It is hard to conceive of any IEEPA power that could not be justified on the same ground of “pressure.”
The Government’s reading would cause the meaning of “deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat” to permit any infliction of a burden on a counterparty to exact concessions, regardless of the relationship between the burden inflicted and the concessions exacted. If “deal with” can mean “impose a burden until someone else deals with,” then everything is permitted. It means a President may use IEEPA to take whatever actions he chooses simply by declaring them “pressure” or “leverage” tactics that will elicit a third party’s response to an unconnected “threat.” Surely this is not what Congress meant when it clarified that IEEPA powers “may not be exercised for any other purpose” than to “deal with” a threat.
you didn't post a link, and Chrissy can't read so he's going to throw a tantrum instead.
No more losing the right way
They want a fight they got it
You gals are easier than a crack whore and just as honest
Sounds like Trump can tariff away! BidenBros always root for the away team. Disgraceful they live here.