Donald Trump’s massive across the board tariffs blocked.

Re: Stephen Harper’s post 54757 of 5/29/25

What a welcomed change of events.

*sb

Re: Kyle Ratliff’s post 103748 of 5/29/25

What a welcomed change of events.

Agreed.  I felt a sigh of relief on hearing this positive, rational news.

*sb

Re: Stephen Harper’s post 54757 of 5/29/25

President Trump’s sweeping tariffs have been blocked by the U.S. Court of International Trade. 

Notably, this is not just a temporary injunction.  This is a final ruling, and a strong one:  the tariffs are unlawful, and Congress is not allowed to delegate their powers to levy taxes to the President.  So even if the law had said what Trump’s lawyers claimed it did, that law would be unconstitutional.

Trump’s people responded by attacking the legitimacy of the Judicial Branch itself:

“It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency. President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness,” Kush Desai [Whitehouse spokesman] wrote.

“The judicial coup is out of control,” Miller [Whitehouse Chief of Staff] wrote on X

The real coup has been in progress since January 6, 2021, the day that Trump crossed the Rubicon.

An appeals court has just granted Trump a temporary injunction, so the tariffs are back on for now.  I expect that he will lose his appeal eventually and move on to a different tactic to destroy our wealth and freedom.

*sb

Re: Garrett Garcia’s post 103758 of 5/29/25

You spoke too soon:

May 29 (Reuters) – A federal appeals court temporarily reinstated the most sweeping of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Thursday, a day after a U.S. trade court ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority in imposing the duties and ordered an immediate block on them.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington said it was pausing the lower court’s ruling to consider the government’s appeal, and ordered the plaintiffs in the cases to respond by June 5 and the administration by June 9.

/sb

Re: Garrett Garcia’s post 103758 of 5/29/25

Notably, this is not just a temporary injunction.  This is a final ruling, and a strong one:  the tariffs are unlawful, and Congress is not allowed to delegate their powers to levy taxes to the President.  So even if the law had said what Trump’s lawyers claimed it did, that law would be unconstitutional.

To add to this, I think the decision does a good job of closing out avenues for appeal.

The judges argue that the law has to be one of two things:

• if the law is limited, the president has to act within its limitations, and he did not. In particular, he did not identify a real emergency and implementations that would deal with that emergency.
• if, as Trump argues, he can declare anything he wants to be an emergency and how to deal with it, the law is unlimited in its tariffs powers, and therefore unconstitutional since those powers belong to Congress and cannot be completely delegated.

In other words, the tariffs are not allowed under the law in any possible case.

/sb

Re: Harry Binswanger’s post 103773 of 5/30/25

You spoke too soon:

I addressed that in the last paragraph of my post

The injunction isn’t surprising.  I don’t think there’s any way the appeals court (or the Supremes) will ultimately rule in Trump’s favor.

*sb

Re: Harry Binswanger’s post 103773 of 5/30/25

You spoke too soon [re a court’s rejection of Trump’s tariffs]

On May 29, an ex-judge told CNN that these court reversals will get to the Supreme Court and be decided against “emergency” tariffs. He noted that the decades-long “emergency” of trade didn’t stop economic progress. The Judiciary’s rejection of non-divided, unified government is not as quick and consistent as objectively needed but it is happening, slowly, bumpily, but happening. Trump is thankfully not in the nation’s face as much as during his 100-day honeymoon.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

-Tommy J

Rand’s respect for timeless universals is powerfully shown here. Jefferson could have been writing today without a change. It really is amazing. And I wonder if the attacks on “unelected” and “rogue” judges by Trump’s minions will increase the Supreme Court’s defense of divided government. The Bible is not normally called upon in our context but it usefully defines minions as fallen angels or demons. On the other hand, Plato’s daemons were a concretization of a person’s character, similar to Rand’s “self-made soul.”

/sb

Re: Stephen Grossman’s post 103784 of 5/30/25

We should not celebrate too quickly.

Even if the Supreme Court ultimately overturns the current tariffs, this morning’s WSJ, like Mr. Harper’s original AP article, describes how the Trump Administration may simply pivot to the Trade Act of 1974, under which they are considered to have firmer legal footing.

From the article:

First, the administration is considering a stopgap effort to impose tariffs on swaths of the global economy under a never-before-used provision of the Trade Act of 1974, which includes language allowing for tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address trade imbalances with other countries, the people said. That would then buy time for Trump to devise individualized tariffs for each major trading partner under a different provision of the same law, used to counter unfair foreign trade practices.

That second step requires a lengthy notification and comment process, but is seen by administration officials as more legally defensible than the tariff policy that was found to be illegal this week. The alternative provision has been used many times in the past, including for Trump’s first-term tariffs on China.

https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/trump-trade-tariff-strategy-pivot-bfe11596?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1

*sb

Re: Daniel Suberviola’s post 103789 of 5/30/25

We should not celebrate too quickly…

WSJ…describes how the Trump Administration may simply pivot to the Trade Act of 1974, which includes language allowing for tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days

15% for 150 days is FAR better than what it had been.  This would effectively eliminate the massive arbitrary raising and un-raising of import taxes that Trump has been doing.  That is a significant win and is absolutely worth celebrating.

Still a Long Road

Yes, America is still under siege by a President who is trying his best to burn it and us to the ground.  But every time the Judicial Branch rules against him, and every time that ruling is followed, however reluctantly, that is a battle won by the only branch of government left still defending freedom.

Another important battle won is public opinion.  Trump’s import tax hikes have caused real pain and chaos for many people.  They’ve put the MAGA-aligned media in the awkward position of having to defend Trump’s leftist trade policies — policies that many of them have spent years arguing against.  First, they latched onto the excuse of national defense.  Then Trump made them all look like fools again by raising taxes on every country on Earth and putting the lie to the national defense rationalization.

It’s also put the Democrats and Democrat-aligned media in the position of defending free trade, sometimes using principled arguments!  Now that’s an accomplishment!

/sb