Court Takes Away Trump’s Tariff Toys
Well, most of them.
Via the AP: Federal court blocks Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs under emergency powers law.
A federal court on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency-powers law, swiftly throwing into doubt Trump’s signature set of economic policies that have rattled global financial markets, frustrated trade partners and raised broader fears about inflation intensifying and the economy slumping.
The ruling from a three-judge panel at the New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade came after several lawsuits arguing Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs exceeded his authority and left the country’s trade policy dependent on his whims.
This unanimous ruling, issued by a three-judge panel including a Trump appointee, a Reagan appointee, and an Obama appointee, severely curtails Trump’s ability to issue whatever tariff at whatever level on whomever and whatever he wishes.
He may still have some more limited options.
Trump might still be able to temporarily launch import taxes of 15% for 150 days on nations with which the U.S. runs a substantial trade deficit. The ruling notes that a president has this authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
[…]
The ruling left in place any tariffs that Trump put in place using his Section 232 powers from the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. He put a 25% tax on most imported autos and parts, as well as on all foreign-made steel and aluminum. Those tariffs depend on a Commerce Department investigation that reveals national security risks from imported products.
I must confess, this amused me:
He is facing at least seven lawsuits challenging the levies. The plaintiffs argued that the emergency powers law does not authorize the use of tariffs, and even if it did, the trade deficit is not an emergency because the U.S. has run a trade deficit with the rest of the world for 49 consecutive years.
Indeed.
Ilya Somin, who helped file the suit, writes about it all at Reason: We Won Our Tariff Case!
In that write-up, he notes that the court ruled that the constitutional strictures creating separation of powers simply do not allow such sweeping and permanent delegation of authority of the type Trump asserted under his “Liberation Day” proclamations.
Here is Paul Krugman’s initial reaction: Is There a Dignified Legal Way, Preferably in Latin, to Say “Holy Shit”?
Here’s his longer assessment: The Trade Emperor Has Always Been Stark Naked. Rather than try to excerpt, I will simply recommend it as worthwhile reading.
Of course, this will all result in even more rhetorical attacks on the courts
SCOTUS will have to weigh in, so this isn’t over yet, but a good ruling nonetheless.
Given the cast of deplorable morons in El Taco’s circle these days, and that legal losses will only continue to mount, how long before the autogolpe?
Just wait until he learns the judges at the U.S. Court of International Trade have lifetime appointments!
I see a flurry of 2am TruthSocial posts coming in 3..2..
True, but it helps that this is exactly the designated court to issue this ruling, it is a unanimous 3-judge panel and its a final judgment rather than a preliminary injunction.
As you note, it ain’t over til the fat Justice dissents.
Regarding the content of whatever bile Bove and his lackeys vomit up:
We know they are lying.
They know they are lying.
They know we know they are lying.
We know they know we know they are lying.
But they are still lying.
~ Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn
Fun additional fact: Wall Street calls Trump TACO and it infuriates him. TACO = trump always chickens out.
To harsh your mellow, just came across this at LGM:
Taken from an NYT piece.
“NYT Gift“
@gVOR10:
This may be a case where the Crow & Leo Court rules against El Taco. after all, the crazy insane tariffs are costing the court’s owners money.
Question for the lawyers here. I assume there are federal employees who have to actually assess and collect the tariffs. Are they allowed legally to defy the court?
I think the go-to question from any reporter is the coming days needs to be, “The Court of International Trade didn’t determine that your proposed tariffs are unconstitutional, but only that the POTUS doesn’t have authority to impose them – Congress does. Your party holds both chambers of Congress and they’ve shown they’ll pass what you tell them to because you’re the greatest President ever. Have Congress impose your tariffs – What’s the problem?”
@charontwo: As noted in the OP: not all tariff powers have been eliminated.
@charontwo:
The Trump administration does not “investigate.” It just “finds.” An actual investigation is well beyond their capacity.
BTW, it is not the time to stop continually pounding on the fact that these tariffs are taxes on working Americans. Went grocery shopping yesterday. Coffee beans are up $1 a pound, bananas are up about 15 cents/lb, and avocados are up a good chunk. Also BTW, these taxes will not bring back the coffee and banana plantations to the US. They are just taxes.
Awe … and he was having so much fun with it.
@Scott: I saw a local TV commercial for an Audi dealership advertising “pre-tariff pricing.”
The more businesses do that kind of thing, the more people writ large will notice.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I think all e-commerce businesses should show the tariff component of their product pricing.
Which reminds me that about a month ago, Jeff Bezos, when Trump expressed displeasure that Amazon was displaying prices with estimated tariff costs added, ceased doing just that. Evidently, despite paying the Trump Syndicate $40M for the rights to a scintillating Melania bio, Jeff is still on bended knee.
@Scott:
True enough, but only because we don’t grow coffee and bananas in the 48 contiguous states. Unfair comparison.
On the other hand, at the rate we’re ignoring climate change, we may be able to in a decade or so. It may even be necessary to depending on how high temperatures in the tropics get.
ETA: We could become the first unified developed nation/banana republic. Wouldn’t that be a coup!
Not so fast, friends:
http://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/29/blocked-trump-tariffs-trade-court-appeal.html
@CSK: I was just going to post this myself. That didn’t take long, did it?
The Donald Trump full-employment-for-lawyers administration proceeds apace. Lucky us. 🙁
@al Ameda:
Lex Bezos probably has the wrong idea about corruption. The person taking the bribe is in control of developments, not the person paying it.
The court held that the power to impose taxes and duties was reserved to Congress by the constitution. While Congress could delegate that power to the executive in defined circumstances, it couldn’t delegate the whole power Trump was claiming even if it wanted to (nor had it tried to).
It also held that if Congress intended to delegate such a major question as the delegation of sweeping tax powers to the president, it would have needed to stipulate in very precise terms the extent of the powers and the circumstances in which they could be exercised. It had done neither.
My understanding is that the Supreme Court would agree with both these propositions if it followed its recent decisions. I can’t think of a reason why five members would want to make themselves look silly just to let Trump create more economic chaos.
On the other hand appeals could spin the case well into next year. If the order remains stayed while all the appeals proceed, Roberts and company might decide it’s simply not practicable to order the government to refund 18 months or whatever in tariff revenue, and declare that really it’s up to the president to decide if there’s an unusual and extraordinary threat and the courts should not interfere in such a political issue. Congress can do it if it wants!
@Scott F.: At least one reporter asked a version of your suggested go-to question today. Peter Doocy (yes, Fox News) and the press secretary had the following exchange at the White House press briefing:
Doocy: [In the context of the tariffs having been struck down by the court] But, so the courts are basically telling you guys they think that the White House’s policies, the president’s policies, are in some way against the law. So why can’t President Trump ask the Republicans that control the House and the Republicans that control the Senate just to make a new law?
Leavitt: Uh, well, these laws have already been granted to the president by the Constitution and by laws that have been previously passed. I’ll give you another example. For instance… [Changed subject to the revocation of visas.]
So consider your question answered… Don’t believe those silly old courts, but believe the administration when they tell you they really are acting within the law.
Add.: A later statement from trump said, “The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs,” so maybe the press secretary really isn’t a good source of information.