![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The Supreme Court blocks the "Emergency" Tariffs!
That's right, the highest court in the land blocked the tariffs in a 6-3 decision. Opposing the decision were - take a big guess - Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh.
There were a few problems. HIS use of tariffs were predicated on using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which a lower court declared did not give him the power to impose tariffs. Specifically, the law that created the act did not include the words "tariffs" or "duties" and that those powers did indeed lie in the House of Representatives and their specific control of the country's purse strings.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the ruling. From the NBC article: "The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope," Roberts wrote. But the Trump administration "points to no statute" in which Congress has previously said that the language in IEEPA could apply to tariffs, he added.
As such, "we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs," Roberts wrote.
The 1977 IEEPA has never been previously invoked, so there is no historical precedent to draw from.
To try and throw a bone to the President's supporters, Gorsuch said this:
Now, I think this is a fine thing to say. But I wonder how many of his followers will be able to parse the meaning of it?
In response to the ruling, a hissy fit was thrown, a certain toddler was heard saying that 'I don't need the IEEPA!' and set all tariffs to 10%, which is a great reduction for lots of countries and an increase for some.
Also from the NBC article: "The decision does not affect all of Trump's tariffs, leaving in place ones he imposed on steel and aluminum using different laws, for example. But it upends his tariffs in two categories. One is country-by-country or “reciprocal” tariffs, which range from 34% for China to a 10% baseline for the rest of the world. The other is a 25% tariff Trump imposed on some goods from Canada, China and Mexico for what the administration said was their failure to curb the flow of fentanyl."
It looks like the $175 billion that has been paid by importers could be subject to refunds, we'll see what happens. It's going to be a huge mess trying to pry that money out of the Treasury, regardless.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/supreme-court-blocks-trumps-emergency-tariffs-billions-in-refunds-may-be-owed/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-strikes-trumps-tariffs-major-blow-president-rcna244827
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-tells-trump-no-on-tariff-power-grab_n_6925ab7ae4b063285310b10f
There were a few problems. HIS use of tariffs were predicated on using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which a lower court declared did not give him the power to impose tariffs. Specifically, the law that created the act did not include the words "tariffs" or "duties" and that those powers did indeed lie in the House of Representatives and their specific control of the country's purse strings.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the ruling. From the NBC article: "The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope," Roberts wrote. But the Trump administration "points to no statute" in which Congress has previously said that the language in IEEPA could apply to tariffs, he added.
As such, "we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs," Roberts wrote.
The 1977 IEEPA has never been previously invoked, so there is no historical precedent to draw from.
To try and throw a bone to the President's supporters, Gorsuch said this:
For those who think it important for the Nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today’s decision will be disappointing. All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason. Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions. And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day."
Now, I think this is a fine thing to say. But I wonder how many of his followers will be able to parse the meaning of it?
In response to the ruling, a hissy fit was thrown, a certain toddler was heard saying that 'I don't need the IEEPA!' and set all tariffs to 10%, which is a great reduction for lots of countries and an increase for some.
Also from the NBC article: "The decision does not affect all of Trump's tariffs, leaving in place ones he imposed on steel and aluminum using different laws, for example. But it upends his tariffs in two categories. One is country-by-country or “reciprocal” tariffs, which range from 34% for China to a 10% baseline for the rest of the world. The other is a 25% tariff Trump imposed on some goods from Canada, China and Mexico for what the administration said was their failure to curb the flow of fentanyl."
It looks like the $175 billion that has been paid by importers could be subject to refunds, we'll see what happens. It's going to be a huge mess trying to pry that money out of the Treasury, regardless.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/supreme-court-blocks-trumps-emergency-tariffs-billions-in-refunds-may-be-owed/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-strikes-trumps-tariffs-major-blow-president-rcna244827
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-tells-trump-no-on-tariff-power-grab_n_6925ab7ae4b063285310b10f
no subject
no subject
Are some of them trying to pretend they are not in his pocket?
Hugs, Jon
no subject
Some are pretending not to be, others are quite content to be firmly nestled in there.
no subject
no subject
A great idea was put forth to term-limit SCOTUS justices to like a 16-year term, so each POTUS term would see two retiring. The problem is, that would require a constitutional amendment, and those aren't the easiest to get through.
no subject
That said, I am not a fan at all of For Life positions. :o :o :o
That is beyond wrong for any position. :o
no subject
Though on other areas of Trumpean overreach, they can't rule until someone with standing brings a suit.