Politics

[Wheels]

Todays SCOTUS ruling deals with tariffs applied under IEEPA. Yes it could be a mess.

In scanning Kavanaugh’s Decent, it seems Kavanaugh is providing a road map of other laws the tariffs would best be applied to.

Since Learning Resources v Trump was heard by SCOTUS most scholars have felt Trump would loose under IEEPA. IEEPA was just the easiest and fastest way for the Administration to implement the tariffs. Putting tariffs under IEEPA was a novel idea to begin with.

My guess is Bessent and company have a plan in place to roll the tariffs over under another law(s).

ie:

1. SEC 232 of the trade expansion act.

2. Sec 301 of the trade act for unfair trade practices.

3. Sec 201 import injury to industries.

There are probably a number of other laws the tariffs could be applied to.

If I was a foreign country/company I wouldn’t get too excited yet. This has a long way to go.

 

[KJE81]

Apparently Trump decided that the best move after the Supreme Court Ruling was to institute some sort of global 10 percent tariff...once again showing how much a trade deal with the US (under Trump) is worth?

Loading…

www.politico.com

 

[Aaron N]

Apparently Trump decided that the best move after the Supreme Court Ruling was to institute some sort of global 10 percent tariff...once again showing how much a trade deal with the US (under Trump) is worth?

Loading…

www.politico.com

He’ll show them!!

 

[RLD]

Apparently Trump decided that the best move after the Supreme Court Ruling was to institute some sort of global 10 percent tariff...once again showing how much a trade deal with the US (under Trump) is worth?

Loading…

www.politico.com

The shade he was slinging at the judges via their families was a remarkable new low. Looks like the last thrashing of a dying dinosaur. Can't wait to see what he is going to do when they rule against him on birthright citizenship.

Of course he may simply be full of crap. He recently said he was going to put an extra 10% tariff on Canada and never did. It could be that someone advised him about some of the unforeseen consequences of that policy that were not helpful to him.

 

[Brent in Az]

Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh, voted in favor of Trump tariffs.
Roberts has always been a flip flopper, as witnessed by his Obamacare tax decision, and screwing us in the process on various decisions.
The Dem judges are being typical Dem judges.

This one......

 

[fourfive8]

I see the predictable post about congressional oversight for tariffs, as the Canadian lawyer so enjoys pontificating about. What congressional oversight? All they have been worried about since last election and for endless elections before, is getting re-elected in 2 or 6 year cycles. To maintain power, all they’ve been focused on is being anti-Trump and promising goodies for their voter/support base be they citizen or not or criminals or not. Hate to be pessimistic but…….

 

[RLD]

Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh, voted in favor of Trump tariffs.
Roberts has always been a flip flopper, as witnessed by his Obamacare tax decision, and screwing us in the process on various decisions.
The Dem judges are being typical Dem judges.

This one......

View attachment 747425

You clearly don't follow SCOTUS closely at all.

Barrett is the brightest light with the highest upside on the court. She has a chance to be a memorable SCOTUS judge. She was a great appointment.

However, she did indeed say some misleading things about her position on abortion during her confirmation hearings, but everyone knew that at the time.

You are welcome to show some shred of evidence about what she told to Trump about her position on the power to use tariffs that was misleading. I would love to see it.

Maybe it was published in your favourite Marxist paper, the WSJ?

 

[Wheels]

I have no issue with the SCOTUS ruling on tariffs. The Constitution makes it an Article 1, Congressional, decision. SCOTUS upheld the issue.

The IEEPA law is interesting. Congress gave the President the right to impose sanctions on countries. Obama as an example used IEEPA to impose sanctions on Iran. Evidently the President can stop all goods from a country from entering America but can’t add a tariff to imports under IEEPA according to the court.

This will become a headache for the administration with much more work involved, and some tariffs may not be as punitive.

Tariffs aren’t going away. Just moved under different laws.

SCOTUS didn’t address refunds. Don’t look for the administration to give any. If countries/companies want to litigate it will be tied up for years. Also I wouldn’t be surprised if this administration takes other types of retaliatory measures not tied to tariffs against parties looking to litigate.

 

[RLD]

I see the predictable post about congressional oversight for tariffs, as the Canadian lawyer so enjoys pontificating about. What congressional oversight? All they have been worried about since last election and for endless elections before, is getting re-elected in 2 or 6 year cycles. To maintain power, all they’ve been focused on is being anti-Trump and promising goodies for their voter/support base be they citizen or not or criminals or not. Hate to be pessimistic but…….

It appears however, that the Canadian lawyer was indeed correct about the state of American law. Pout all you want, Trump's position on this one was clearly unconstitutional and now that is the law of your land.

Care to put a bet on which way they will rule on the birthright citizenship issue?

 

[Brent in Az]

You clearly don't follow SCOTUS closely at all.

Barrett is the brightest light with the highest upside on the court. She has a chance to be a memorable SCOTUS judge. She was a great appointment.

However, she did indeed say some misleading things about her position on abortion during her confirmation hearings, but everyone knew that at the time.

You are welcome to show some shred of evidence about what she told to Trump about her position on the power to use tariffs that was misleading. I would love to see it.

Maybe it was published in your favourite Marxist paper, the WSJ?

You can get back to me when the time comes that I actually care about your opinion ....... don't wait up.

 

[RLD]

You can get back to me when the time comes that I actually care about your opinion ....... don't wait up.

It's okay. Neither of us sit on SCOTUS. But the ruling is what it is.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

The shade he was slinging at the judges via their families was a remarkable new low. Looks like the last thrashing of a dying dinosaur. Can't wait to see what he is going to do when they rule against him on birthright citizenship.

Of course he may simply be full of crap. He recently said he was going to put an extra 10% tariff on Canada and never did. It could be that someone advised him about some of the unforeseen consequences of that policy that were not helpful to him.

I thought that too, accusing them of being influenced by foreign interests and ducking the question on what he bases that on.

 

[Red Leg]

Probably worth a listen by our Canadian US code experts.

The second and third order effects of the decision - particularly the case for refunds - likely will be a legal sector revenue enhancement opportunity for a few years.

 

[Pheroze]

Probably worth a listen by our Canadian US code experts.

The second and third order effects of the decision - particularly the case for refunds - likely will be a legal sector revenue enhancement opportunity for a few years.

Is there a reason why the government didn’t just rely on the alternative authority for the tariff in the first place? My experience with challenging government has always involved multiple justifications to the same result.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

The EEPA was not specific about what is an "unusual and extraordinary threat" or what constitutes a threat to US "national security, foreign policy, or economy." I haven't read the decision but I suspect Trump was shot down re "unusual and extraordinary."

Another response suggests Trump will just switch to other acts for authority to reconstitute his tariffs.

The Tariff Act of 1930 permits the president to initiate a tariff if there is "unreasonable charges, exacting, regulations, or intimidation" discriminating against US products. In other words the offending country must be shown to be discriminating specifically against US. However, before any presidential action can be initiated, the US International Trade Commission needs to certify there is foreign discrimination. No tariffs have been brought under this authority. Not surprising.

Section 232 of 1962 Trade Expansion Act specifically allows the president on reccomendation of Commerce Secretary to impose tariffs on specific goods imported that threaten or impair national security. This was supposedly the justification for Trump's aluminum and steel tariffs. In the case of Canada's aluminum imports, the tariff was in violation of existing trade treaties. Oh well. Trump doesn't care about treaties.

Section 301 Trade Act of 1974 grants the US Trade Representative authority to investigate unfair foreign trade practices and remedy them by imposing tariffs and other restrictions. USTR has 12 to 18 months to negotiate a resolution. Then if the policy or practice of a foreign country is still determined to be unreasonable or discriminatory and proved to be a burden to US commerce, the USTR "may take all appropriate and feasible actions, subject to the specific direction of the president, to obtain the elimination of the act, policy, or practice." It does not give the president unilateral authority on his own to initiate tariffs.

The 1972 Trade Act (Section 122) is even more loosely defined. It allows the president to impose unilaterally across-the-board tariffs without congressional approval up to 15% on all imports to mitigate a serious "balance-of-payments deficits." May last only max of 150 days, after which Congress must approve. THIS AUTHORITY HAS NEVER BEEN USED.

I see in the news this afternoon Trump says he will sign an executive order to initiate a 10% tariffs on everyone under Section 122 "on top of all existing tariffs." That would be an invitation for impeachment. This time I think his MAGA buddies in Congress will have to throw him under the bus. It has become impossible to stay loyal to Trump. He's obviously lost any sense of reality. In the interim Congress needs to pass an emergency act at least temporarily restricting him from messing any further with tariffs.

What Trump has done is make it difficult for future presidents to use the well intentioned emergency authority of EEPA. And he has made it almost impossible for Republicans to get reelected to Congress in the upcoming election this fall. Shut up, Donald, and try to be a gracious loser ... for once. Cut your losses ... for the sake of the party ... and the country.

 

[Roosterlund]

Bend over America and keep taking it for the benefit of the rest of the world!!!!!! We will make you rich again!!! Especially China

 

[Brent in Az]

Bend over America and keep taking it for the benefit of the rest of the world!!!!!! We will make you rich again!!! Especially China

Trump is pissed, and he didn't hold back on his opinion of SCOTUS. Not very smart on his part. He really needs to play nice in the SCOTUS sandbox in the hopes of positive rulings in the future.
He accused SCOTUS of making the decision based on foreign interests.
Maybe he's right, maybe not. I don't really know.

 

[RLD]

Is there a reason why the government didn’t just rely on the alternative authority for the tariff in the first place? My experience with challenging government has always involved multiple justifications to the same result.

Because the alternative authorities have temporal, quantum and congressional oversight limits that were not tolerable to the administration.

 

[RLD]

Probably worth a listen by our Canadian US code experts.

The second and third order effects of the decision - particularly the case for refunds - likely will be a legal sector revenue enhancement opportunity for a few years.

Those lawsuits were started months ago and you can expect that issue to get up to SCOTUS as well.

There is a sound reason that SCOTUS didn’t rule on that in these cases. Because that issue was not before them. Unlike a legislature the court is limited in the issues it can tackle. There would have been literally no evidentiary record for them to rule on.

 

[Pheroze]

Because the alternative authorities have temporal, quantum and congressional oversight limits that were not tolerable to the administration.

I guess a staged defence keeps the tariffs in play longer as well