I've seen relatively little discussion about these lawsuits, but I do think there is a pretty good chance that SCOTUS will rule these tariffs unconstitutional. (It's certainly more likely than Congress rescinding the powers they've ceded to the presidency.)
Constitutionally, the power to set tariffs resides with the Legislative branch, not the Executive branch. Congress has delegated some authority to set tariffs under certain conditions (namely, emergencies and matters related to national security). But the Court is clear that one branch cannot delegate all of its powers to another. The Court is pretty deferential to the Executive branch, especially in matters of national security. But no matter how much you squint, it's hard to see how setting broad based tariffs on all goods from every foreign countries qualifies under the Emergency Economic Powers Act.
It is a sound analysis but I think there are other non-legal factors at play.
If the president tries to do X, then the lawyers block X, then in political game theory the president "wins" in the eyes of the electorate because the president can argue "my plan was perfect, the execution failed due to the opposition, so I am not accountable to what has now happened".
The left might want to see a disaster play out to capitalize in the mid-term elections, laying the accountability directly on the president. The right might not have freedom of action because they fear a well-funded challenger for their seat.
In am interested in other people's opinions and ideas in this area. I agree it is too little discussed and analyzed. Please share your insights!
If judiciary blocks X, then trump will say "these are the real bad guys, they are as worse as the dems, lets remove them". And BAM ! You have a dictator.
The sad part is that one of the most powerful nation in the world is filled with idiots who will lap up the above argument.
I would say that all this current situation is because of corporate greed, leading to a skewed distribution of wealth, leading to the evolution of a class of voters who are desperate, gullible and mis-informed.
The people on the left who want to see a disaster play out are mostly accelerationists. I think most on the left would worry more about the harm that economic disaster would be inflicted on people.
And more pragmatically, I think that Trump is so committed to causing disasters that he's likely to succeed at enough of his attempts that there should be pushback to as much of it as possible.
People on the RIGHT want to see this. The younger cohort of republican voters were HAPPY to see the stock portfolios and retirement savings burn up in a puff of smoke, because at least now older cohorts knew their pain.
They have each independently, on different cases, voted against the administration. Except one I think, but it’s also only been three months. And John Robert’s just rebuked trump. It seems they have enough backbone to not care about his ire, and have their own independent minds. Thankfully more than congress does.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 shadow docket decision, just enabled the Trump administration to deport people under the Alien Enemies Act -- a law that requires a declared war or an "invasion or predatory incursion...by a foreign nation or government." So I wouldn't get too excited about the idea that they're going to make a big stand on tariffs.
The Supreme Court, on its shadow docket, did not decide any such thing. It stated very clearly that it was not rendering an opinion on that subject. What it did decide was that due process applies, even to illegal aliens, even under the Alien Enemies Act.
Granting the Trump administration “extraordinary relief” to continue deporting people is absolutely a decision. You can say “we didn’t rule on that issue” a hundred times in a row if it makes you feel better, but if you go out of your way to make sure the government can continue to exercise power under an absurd legal justification, you’re making a very explicit choice.
It’s this kind of legal storytelling, by which you pretend you didn’t authorize something, while actually taking actions that ensure it’s authorized in practice, that is the worst enemy of the rule of law.
I have this "fear" of being in a situation where a judge has to form judgments about code i wrote, even when relying on an "expert".
For the same reason that i believe a situation like that could play out, i don't think i should judge a judges understanding of, dedication to work through, and knowledge about– the laws.
I actually studied law for a few years. And i am baffled by the confidence of laymen about court rulings. It's almost like a client explaining to me how easy it is to fix this small bug.
It decided that deportations can continue, removing the temporary restraining order. And the administration claims that they are irreversible because those people are no longer in US custody. Such wonderful due process we have...
Then when you look at how SCOTUS justified it, they basically claim that the petition is invalid if it's not filed where the detainees are currently held. So how is it supposed to work if the feds just keep shuttling them around?
The past tariffs (including from Trump's first term) were targeted at specific industries like steel or aluminum so you could make a case that it was necessary for national security. Other trade deals that set a broad set of tariffs (like NAFTA) were ratified by the Senate.
Constitutionally, the power to set tariffs resides with the Legislative branch, not the Executive branch. Congress has delegated some authority to set tariffs under certain conditions (namely, emergencies and matters related to national security). But the Court is clear that one branch cannot delegate all of its powers to another. The Court is pretty deferential to the Executive branch, especially in matters of national security. But no matter how much you squint, it's hard to see how setting broad based tariffs on all goods from every foreign countries qualifies under the Emergency Economic Powers Act.