Interesting.
So they don’t feel they can question the emergency at all?
no under the theory its an application of foreign policy ie the purview of the executive.
Seems odd.
I read one commentary that said something like, the supposed emergency is trade imbalances. So why is he putting tariffs on country’s with whom we have a surplus?
Seems like there should be a check on that but I guess that’s supposed to be congress?
What do Trump supporters think avout Trump saying its time to nuke the filibuster and reopen the https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/05/trump-shutdown-gop-filibuster-00637074government
right, Congress has the authority to take back their delegated tariff application via super-majority vote so the judiciary has no role in determining what is and isn’t an emergency. The existing laws which include emergency provisions, have steps the executive has to take before initiating tariffs and has built in limits to the degree of tariff and even time limits. The argument is that presidential authority on tariffs in IEEPPA doesn’t exist is because there are no limits. Constitutionally Congress cannot give its tariff authority away without limit so what is or isn’t an emergency under IEEPA doesn’t count.
Our Supreme Court may very well find, and rightly so, Congress’s power includes overruling any tariff which Trump has imposed, and, as our Supreme Court has correctly stated
…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.
_________ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)
Congress and our President, not our Supreme Court, must work out any disagreements they have when it comes to tariffs.
It was nice to see his attorneys agreeing that US importers pay the tax. Wonder if they’ll be summarily fired for speaking that language.
2 Likes
that’s just your interpretation ie opinion. The recent court cases against Biden with this court would lead most to believe that expansive powers need explicit instruction not nebulous terms like regulation.
The case revolves around the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, under which Congress gave the green light allowing the president to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States”
So, it seems to me it would be Congress, and not our Supreme Court’s job, to shut down [by specific legislation] the President’s actions if they exceed the policy making authority placed in his hands by Congress.
For the Supreme Court to jump in and stop the President from acting under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act would be meddling with a policy making decision which under the circumstances can only be rightfully made by Congress and the President .
As our Supreme Court has correctly stated:
“…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.”
_________ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)
This is just my thoughts, and maybe they are off, maybe thy are not, but it seems to me that SCOTUS should differentiate between “taxes” which are designed to raise revenue, and “tariffs” which are designed to regulate the flow of foreign goods into the country. The purpose of tariffs (regardless of what Trump says) is NOT to raise “trillions of dollars” in revenue. Its to regulate the flow of imports and spur domestic production. In the case of “punitive” tariffs, if they work they raise no money at all.
As such, Trump’s tariffs do fit the description of what is allowed under IEEPA.
3 Likes
That seems to be the administration’s argument. The fact that Tariffs raise revenue is of not concern to them - they are using them as a trade tool…
The counter argument seems to be, doesn’t matter their purpose in using them - they are a tax. For example, you couldn’t say ‘the administration wants to discourage the use of XYZ product for public health issues, so they are levying a federal sales tax on it’ without congress approving it…
But
there’s a huge difference between a sales tax and a tariff. Tariffs protect domestic industry from foreign competition, sales taxes have no foreign policy matters.
1 Like
A well thought out response!
The Supreme Court tariff case involves policy making which is vested exclusively in Congress and our President.
Our founders certainly knew the system they created required moral and ethical leaders at the helm of political power. Unfortunately, what has happened over the past several decades is, judges and Justices have decided to ignore the text of our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted _ evidence which gives context to its text _ and it is exchanged with a judge’s personal predilections or a vision which a majority of the Supreme Court’s members agree with, who then, in some cases, go on to pretend and delude us that their opinion is within the meaning of our Constitution.
This subjugation of our Constitution began to flare up during the Warren Court of the l960’s and its creation of “tests” to determine what is and what is not constitutional. One such test was the “rationality” test under which a law being challenged had to withstand the court’s judgment or speculation that the law in question was “rationally based” or “reasonable” to survive the court‘s review. Of course, this allows activist judges and Justices to switch the subject from what is and what is not constitutional, by the explicit terms of our Constitution, to a question having nothing to do with the terms of our Constitution or its documented legislative intent.
Whether rational or not, a law which violates the Constitution cannot be justified as being constitutional if it is rationally based! Likewise, if a law is not rationally based it is not the Court’s job to second guess the wisdom of the legislature, or the terms of our Constitution! To do so is to usurp legislative authority and ignore the separation of powers built into our system of government, not to mention how such action negates the very reason for having a written constitution and elections which are mainly designed to change public policy via appropriate legislation, by and with consent of the people and their elected representatives.
With regard to second guessing legislative acts and the separation of powers, Justice Stone reminds us that:
The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government. U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)
We shall soon find out if the separation of powers is observed by a majority on our current Supreme Court, and if it instructs Congress to decide if the President’s tariff policy decision is in harmony with the policy making power they vested in the President under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
JWK
We are not a capitalist system. Our founders provided for a free enterprise, free market system, a small part of which involves capitalism . . . the investment of monetary assets to achieve a desired goal.
1 Like
They both are a tax.
That’s the point.
Tariffs were the main income for this country for many years. They are a tax.
I suggest you see: Congressional and Presidential Authority to Impose Import Tariffs “Unreviewable Acts That Are Committed to the President’s Discretion” . . . page 7
1 Like
I did not say they were not. I merely stated the difference in purpose. In the case of the IEEAI, they are a tool to regulate the flow of foreign trade. I don’t see anywhere in IEEAI that says they are excluded as a regulatory tool… do you? What I’m getting at, is differentiation. The across the board 10%? That’s a congressional prerogative. I don’t think Trump can do that. The punitive tariffs designed to broker trade deals and more equalize advantages and disadvantages vs our trading “partners”… yeah, I think he can do that.
please post where I ever said otherwise.
Then isn’t the role of Congress to intervene and not the courts?
Your points are well taken.
Aside from that it seems to me the bottom line is, Congress (not our courts) is the check and balance under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Should Congress disagree with Trump’s tariffs imposed by the power delegated to the President under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Congress may enact specific legislation revoking Trump’s specific application of the power delegated under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
see: PAGE 21 of “Congressional and Presidential Authority to Impose Import Tariffs” LINK
222 “.S. Reciprocal Trade Act, H.R. 735, 119th Cong. (2025). This bill also provides that Congress may terminate the President’s action via enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval. See id.”
Why would anyone want unelected Supreme Court Justices making policy making decisions as opposed to our elected Representatives and Senators?
1 Like
