An Enormous Usurpation’: Inside the Case Against Trump’s Tariffs

[placeholder]

The Trump administration’s trade war has prompted chaos and countermeasures across the globe, but a potent counterattack has emerged in the courts in recent weeks — and in the long run, it could fatally undermine President Donald Trump’s unprecedented global tariff regime.

 

The challenges were inevitable, but they are also strong on the merits — drawing directly on the interpretive tools and legal doctrines frequently embraced by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

The question is whether the courts — including perhaps the Supreme Court itself — will agree, or whether they will blink in the face of the economic and diplomatic turmoil that Trump has unleashed.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/04/21/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-legal-arguments-00299467

[Cameroni]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The Trump administration’s trade war has prompted chaos and countermeasures across the globe, but a potent counterattack has emerged in the courts in recent weeks — and in the long run, it could fatally undermine President Donald Trump’s unprecedented global tariff regime.

 

The challenges were inevitable, but they are also strong on the merits — drawing directly on the interpretive tools and legal doctrines frequently embraced by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

The question is whether the courts — including perhaps the Supreme Court itself — will agree, or whether they will blink in the face of the economic and diplomatic turmoil that Trump has unleashed.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/04/21/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-legal-arguments-00299467

 

Complete fantasy. It is well established that Congress has passed its power to impose tariffs to the executive.  This has been established for over 100 years.

 

Non-story. Zero chances of success. No way will the Supreme Court interfere in this.

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Complete fantasy. It is well established that Congress has passed its power to impose tariffs to the executive.  This has been established for over 100 years.

 

Non-story. Zero chances of success. No way will the Supreme Court interfere in this.

It's a good thing you cdidn't read the story. The current Supreme Court has imposed major changes in legal  doctrine. The statute that Trump invokes to justify his imposition of tariffs clearly violates their new doctrine.

[Cameroni]

Just now, placeholder said:

It's a good thing you cdidn't read the story. The current Supreme Court has imposed major changes in legal  doctrine. The statute that Trump invokes to justify his imposition of tariffs clearly violates their new doctrine.

 

Dream on.

 

Even those pursuing these claims know there's no chance of success.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

Dream on.

 

Even those pursuing these claims know there's no chance of success.

I'm sure you wouldn't make that kind of blanket assertion without offering some kind of evidence or reasoning to back it up. I await one or the other or both with interest.

[jerrymahoney]

The Politico article mentions the California/Newsom case, but the stronger case may be in Pensacola, FL with ultra-conservative legal interests involved.

BTW as per 'blanket assertions' as mentioned about, the Pensacola, FL does not involve blankets but stationery and day planners, etc. from China.

[Yagoda]

From the article:

"The challenges were inevitable, but they are also strong on the merits — drawing directly on the interpretive tools and legal doctrines frequently embraced by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court." (emphasis added)

 

Legal translation: No cases support our contentions and indeed, the weight of authority is against us, so we will make circuitous legal arguments and pray.

[Cameroni]

20 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I'm sure you wouldn't make that kind of blanket assertion without offering some kind of evidence or reasoning to back it up. I await one or the other or both with interest.

 

Sure.

 

The Constitution expressly grants Congress the “power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises…” and also “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations… .”

But during World War I, Congress began to cede some of that authority when it gave the president power to regulate trade with enemies.

After the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill helped deepen the Great Depression, lawmakers in 1930 began the process of giving power over tariffs to presidents.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/08/politics/tariffs-trump-power-constitution-congress/index.html

 

Even those members of Congress who are pursuing action KNOW Congress granted this power to the Executive. They have no leg to stand on.

[jerrymahoney]

From the linked Politico article:

(Second), the relevant provision of the IEEPA contains a bunch of words, but none of those words is “tariffs” or “taxes.”

[Keep Right]

13 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Sure.

 

The Constitution expressly grants Congress the “power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises…” and also “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations… .”

But during World War I, Congress began to cede some of that authority when it gave the president power to regulate trade with enemies.

After the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill helped deepen the Great Depression, lawmakers in 1930 began the process of giving power over tariffs to presidents.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/08/politics/tariffs-trump-power-constitution-congress/index.html

 

Even those members of Congress who are pursuing action KNOW Congress granted this power to the Executive. They have no leg to stand on.

So very true, there is no usurping going on by the elected President Trump. President Trump has every  legal right to make America Great Again by placing tariffs on counties that practice unfail trade. A little pain will bring about much gain.

[SunnyinBangrak]

I think it's very clear.

 

Biden tariffs good.

Trump tariffs bad.

 

Any questions?😅

[BLMFem]

22 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

I think it's very clear.

 

Biden tariffs good.

Trump tariffs bad.

 

Any questions?😅

To compare the two is like comparing a guy scratching his nuts to a guy turning full serial rapist so, yes, Biden good, orange clown bad.

[SunnyinBangrak]

3 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

To compare the two is like comparing a guy scratching his nuts to a guy turning full serial rapist so, yes, Biden good, orange clown bad.

Careful, this is not a Tara Reade thread.

[Purdey]

The more I read the more I think there are people who don't understand why trade deficits exist. 

 

A trade deficit is when we buy more (if we are in a rich, developed country) because we are richer than a country that is... not as rich. Also, having a larger population, of course this requires greater volume of purchases. 

 

The less rich country doesn't buy the same amount from the richer developed country because it is relatively poorer. The less rich country is not ripping off the richer country: it simply cannot afford to buy an equal amount.

 

In simple terms, the USA buys $100 of goods from a less rich country because it has that $100 to spend.

 

A less rich country may only have $25 to spend, so it just cannot afford to buy $100 worth of goods. It's not rocket science.

 

[xylophone]

7 minutes ago, Purdey said:

The more I read the more I think there are people who don't understand why trade deficits exist. 

 

A trade deficit is when we buy more (if we are in a rich, developed country) because we are richer than a country that is... not as rich. Also, having a larger population, of course this requires greater volume of purchases. 

 

The less rich country doesn't buy the same amount from the richer developed country because it is relatively poorer. The less rich country is not ripping off the richer country: it simply cannot afford to buy an equal amount.

 

In simple terms, the USA buys $100 of goods from a less rich country because it has that $100 to spend.

 

A less rich country may only have $25 to spend, so it just cannot afford to buy $100 worth of goods. It's not rocket science.

 

Well that will help the "poorly educated" trump fans!!!

 

Maybe trump should read it because he doesn't understand what causes a trade deficit either!!

[BLMFem]

10 minutes ago, Purdey said:

The more I read the more I think there are people who don't understand why trade deficits exist. 

 

A trade deficit is when we buy more (if we are in a rich, developed country) because we are richer than a country that is... not as rich. Also, having a larger population, of course this requires greater volume of purchases. 

 

The less rich country doesn't buy the same amount from the richer developed country because it is relatively poorer. The less rich country is not ripping off the richer country: it simply cannot afford to buy an equal amount.

 

In simple terms, the USA buys $100 of goods from a less rich country because it has that $100 to spend.

 

A less rich country may only have $25 to spend, so it just cannot afford to buy $100 worth of goods. It's not rocket science.

 

Tell that to the MAGA crowd.

[jerrymahoney]

The White House
April 2, 2025

President Trump is invoking his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to address the national emergency posed by the large and persistent trade deficit that is driven by the absence of reciprocity in our trade relationships and other harmful policies like currency manipulation and exorbitant value-added taxes (VAT) perpetuated by other countries.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-declares-national-emergency-to-increase-our-competitive-edge-protect-our-sovereignty-and-strengthen-our-national-and-economic-security/
___________________

Trump invoked the IEEPA -- if he already had the authority, why bother.

[placeholder]

33 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

The White House
April 2, 2025

President Trump is invoking his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to address the national emergency posed by the large and persistent trade deficit that is driven by the absence of reciprocity in our trade relationships and other harmful policies like currency manipulation and exorbitant value-added taxes (VAT) perpetuated by other countries.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-declares-national-emergency-to-increase-our-competitive-edge-protect-our-sovereignty-and-strengthen-our-national-and-economic-security/
___________________

Trump invoked the IEEPA -- if he already had the authority, why bother.

And the point of the article is that if he was going to invoke the statute the IEEPA wasn't the one he should have used. But, apparently, he was too impatient to use a more targeted statute.