Good News -- Trump Tariffs Permanently Enjoined
I have made no secret of my opposition to Trump's tariffs. They are absolutely terrible economic policy, though that is a legislative and political issue and not one to be addressed by courts. What was an issue for courts was whether the President actually had the authority to unilaterally issue such sweeping tariffs. I and many others questioned that authority from day one:
The power to set tariff's is enshrined in the Constitution (that document Republicans used to care about) as a power of Congress. Weak-kneed and lazy Congresses have delegated some of this power to President's, but only very narrowly. The picture is complicated and illegal actions by the President can be hard to review in court. But looking at the 4-6 major delegations to the President of tariff authority, it is difficult to see that any of them apply simultaneously to every country on Earth and every single product manufactured anywhere. Certainly there is no precedent for them being enacted by the President on anything but a far far narrower basis (eg steel from China).
A three-judge panel from the US Court of International Trade (which I will confess I never heard of but apparently has jurisdiction over such issues) made up of two R-appointed judges and one D-appointed judge unanimously overturned the tariffs and issued a permanent injunction against them.
The Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises," and to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 1, 3. The question in the two cases before the court is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 ("IEEPA") delegates these powers to the President in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country he court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder.
Good. I believe that some of the various injunctions against Trump actions are weak and will likely get overturned -- they seem to be more legislative actions than legal ones -- but this one in my mind is rock solid. I thought Biden's unilaterally forgiving a trillion dollars in student loans was pretty lawless but if anything Trump's "liberation day" tariffs may have been even less legally justified.
Many Republicans have gone all-in on publicly eschewing everything they previously believed in to support Trump on these tariffs, and many have got to be breathing a silent sigh of relief that the court did their work for them in shutting this down. Though kudos to Rand Paul who is the only major Republican that stuck to his principals and attempted legislative overrides.
Speaking of Republican reactions, I have been particularly irritated at the reality defiance of those who claim that the recent rise in the stock market and consumer confidence are a vote of confidence in Trump. Here is an example from the previously-willing-to-challenge-Trump folks at Powerline.
For the last four months, essentially every “news” outlet has devoted pretty much every news story to trying to undermine the Trump administration. Among other things, they have tried to persuade us that the economic sky is falling because of President Trump’s policies–whatever those policies may be, and whether or not they have even been implemented. This has made consumers a little nervous, but not nervous enough.
Thus, the May consumer confidence numbers came in today, and they are awesome....
That is why the stock markets are up sharply today.
This is absurd. The stock market and consumer confidence both crashed - hard - with the imposition of Trump's tariff's. They have risen each time Trump has backed off, delayed, or scaled back these tariffs. The market will almost certainly rise again today on the news of the court case. I guess that is a political strategy of sorts -- announce economy-stomping actions early, watch the market and public confidence tumble, and then take credit for the improvement when you roll back the terrible actions. This is the equivalent to banging your head on the wall because it feels good when you stop.
I'm as opposed as you to the tariffs.
But I gotta quibble with the "permanently enjoined" headline. This will go to SCOTUS. The court said he has 10 days to stop collecting them, but obviously he's appealing to SCOTUS.
But if you look deeper, he's got options. There's another law (Trade Act of 1974) that he can potentially use to impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days. That might be long enough to get through various Section 232 investigations that he's got the ability to set tariffs that he can claim are national security-based. I also read about another 1930 law (that has never been used) that might be an option.
Maybe he got his hand slapped on IEEPA, but if you think he's not going to double down with every possible rationale he can, you're fooling yourself. He might have 150 days to crash the world economy if he doesn't get his way on IEEPA.
Has nobody read his book? He is making deals and idiots are spring loaded to think a brilliant mogul is a simple fool because they fail to understand what the reality is underlying the bluster and gaming. Think what you are really dealing with and set aside your really stupid hatred for the man.
@Brad - You're right that there are alternatives. In fact, during Trump's first term he relied on the Trade Expansion Act (TEA). The problem with it for the Administration is that it imposes a lot more red tape, and can only be used to tariff specific things, backed by economic reporting without which the tariffs expire relatively quickly. Trump couldn't use TEA to impose tariffs on everyone and everything at once as he is trying to do with IEEPA.
So, no, this ruling won't completely end tariffs, but it will greatly limit them in scope and velocity, the latter of which is roiling businesses.