Court of International Trade puts Trump tariffs on hold

[TemplarKormac]

I hate when I get high on sugar and Elder Scrolls. Oh well. Check this out:

The DoJ is now citing United States v. Yoshida International, Inc., 526 F.2d 560 (C.C.P.A. 1971) in its appeal. It contends that the president can exercise broad power without the courts arbitrarily overriding his decision, based on what Nixon did to Yoshida.

Go look that up. It's good for the soul.

Guys, I don't like to brag but I called this last night. They used this SCOTUS ruling from 1971 to win the appeal.

I told you, I like studying the law. I know the law more than some of you do. I won't assume I know more than all of you, but still.

Geez. I couldn't have nailed anything harder...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Funny how the market skyrocketed on news that Trump exceeded his Constitutional authority in enacting his tariffs and how MAGA commies are all in a fit that Trump can not exercise his control over free enterprises.

The district court is right. The president has engaged in ultra vires action regarding the imposition of his tariffs against nearly every country of the world (except Russia) and in clear violation of the IEEPA. The appeals court has temporarily stayed the DC's decision, but the DC's rationale was right on the money. If Trump wants to impose a blanket tariff, he needs Congressional approval, as opposed to the excuse that there is some kind of "national emergency" to come under the IEEPA.

If Trump said there was a "national emergency" against China, that would fly; but, against countries like Botswana, Cameroon and the Virgin Islands, it is pure unadulterated bullshit.

As far as the IEEPA goes, I'm inclined to agree with the courts here, and he will be struck by SCOTUS, however, he has more tools, more legal ones, like I just mentioned earlier.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

 

[Concerned American]

Another court overstepping its authority, but the stock markets love it.

https://www.axios.com/2025/05/28/trump-tariffs-trade-court-ruling

Court says Trump doesn't have the authority to set tariffs​

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5322889-court-rules-trump-tariffs/

Court of International Trade blocks Trump’s tariffs in sweeping ruling​

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/28/business/us-court-blocks-trumps-tariffs

US court blocks Trump from imposing the bulk of his tariffs​

He didn't have to ignore it. Less than a day later, a bigger courts slapped their decision down at least until June 9th.

 

[JLW]

As far as the IEEPA goes, I'm inclined to agree with the courts here, and he will be struck by SCOTUS, however, he has more tools, more legal ones, like I just mentioned earlier.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

I agree with you regarding the IEEPA. I think the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 requires some kind of rationale for tariffs and can not be instituted at the whim of a president.

 

[kyzr]

He didn't have to ignore it. Less than a day later, a bigger courts slapped their decision down at least until June 9th.

True. But according to the above poll most posters say that these rogue courts need to be ignored when they are obviously way outside their lane.
Who says what an "emergency" is?
Who is responsible for managing the US economy, foreign affairs, national security? Hint: not judges.

 

[scruffy]

Funny how the market skyrocketed on news that Trump exceeded his Constitutional authority in enacting his tariffs and how red MAGA are all in a fit that Trump can not exercise his control over free enterprises.

The district court is right. The president has engaged in ultra vires action regarding the imposition of his tariffs against nearly every country of the world (except Russia) and in clear violation of the IEEPA. The appeals court has temporarily stayed the DC's decision, but the DC's rationale was right on the money. If Trump wants to impose a blanket tariff, he needs Congressional approval, as opposed to the excuse that there is some kind of "national emergency" to come under the IEEPA.

If Trump said there was a "national emergency" against China, that would fly; but, against countries like Botswana, Cameroon and the Virgin Islands, it is pure unadulterated bullshit.

The emergency isn't theirs, it's ours dummy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And I should take my vote and my comments back about Trump ignoring the courts. It's not wise. It sets a precedent that allows future administrations to say, "well Trump did it, we can too." When one potentially does ignore the courts, it could wind up hurting you personally. DON'T.

I regret my comments about ignoring the courts and vote of the same last night. They are rescinded.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I agree with you regarding the IEEPA. I think the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 requires some kind of rationale for tariffs and can not be instituted at the whim of a president.

Goldman Sachs gave a good primer to CNBC about what powers the President has regarding tariffs. It's decent. Go check it out.

 

[kyzr]

I agree with you regarding the IEEPA. I think the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 requires some kind of rationale for tariffs and can not be instituted at the whim of a president.

What whim? The US does not have fair trade deals. Its about time a president manages trade properly.

 

[scruffy]

And I should take my vote and my comments back about Trump ignoring the courts.

It's not wise. It sets a precedent that allows future administrations to say "well Trump did it, we can too."

When one potentially does ignore the courts, it could wind up hurting you personally. DON'T.

I regret my comments and vote last night. They are hereby rescinded.

Too late. Biden started it already.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Too late. Biden started it already.

It is not too late. All it takes is one. Just as it took one to start, it can take one to stop.

 

[kyzr]

And I should take my vote and my comments back about Trump ignoring the courts.
It's not wise. It sets a precedent that allows future administrations to say "well Trump did it, we can too."
When one potentially does ignore the courts, it could wind up hurting you personally. DON'T.
I regret my comments and vote last night. They are hereby rescinded.

Don't second-guess yourself.
Only the supreme court is co-equal to the president.
Goofy district courts should not have authority above the president's Article 2 powers.

 

[Concerned American]

True. But according to the above poll most posters say that these rogue courts need to be ignored when they are obviously way outside their lane.
Who says what an "emergency" is?
Who is responsible for managing the US economy, foreign affairs, national security? Hint: not judges.

I'm opposed to these activist justice's obstructionist actions as well. Hopefully, the SCOTUS will finally put them in their place.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Don't second-guess yourself.
Only the supreme court is co-equal to the president.
Goofy district courts should not have authority above the president's Article 2 powers.

I'm not. Because that insubordination wouldn't be limited to the lower courts, it could extend to SCOTUS.

And when this insubordination gets brazen enough, laws will have literally no meaning.

 

[Concerned American]

Don't second-guess yourself.
Only the supreme court is co-equal to the president.
Goofy district courts should not have authority above the president's Article 2 powers.

I agree with TK, ignoring the court isn't the proper action. The SCOTUS will make the final call.

 

[JimH52]

Funny how the market skyrocketed on news that Trump exceeded his Constitutional authority in enacting his tariffs and how red MAGA are all in a fit that Trump can not exercise his control over free enterprises.

The district court is right. The president has engaged in ultra vires action regarding the imposition of his tariffs against nearly every country of the world (except Russia) and in clear violation of the IEEPA. The appeals court has temporarily stayed the DC's decision, but the DC's rationale was right on the money. If Trump wants to impose a blanket tariff, he needs Congressional approval, as opposed to the excuse that there is some kind of "national emergency" to come under the IEEPA.

If Trump said there was a "national emergency" against China, that would fly; but, against countries like Botswana, Cameroon and the Virgin Islands, it is pure unadulterated bullshit.

This will end up in the USSC. Will John Roberts and his conservatives roll over for trump? They have already given him permission to break laws and excuse it as presidential "official acts." That one ruling, especially with the criminal we now have in the WH, slipped the US closer to a nation ruled by oligarchs and Mafia Bosses.

 

[JLW]

What whim? The US does not have fair trade deals. Its about time a president manages trade properly.

The President has the discretion to impose tariffs, but that discretion is circumscribed by the authority that Congress gives the President. Trump's tariffs are just wily-nily with no rhyme or reason. Really tariffs on Chad and Cocos Islands? SCOTUS will be right to strike down these tariffs as outside his authority. If Congress wants to give a President full authority over tariffs, Congress should enact a bill that gives the President unfettered authority to impose tariffs for any reason.

 

[JLW]

This will end up in the USSC. Will John Roberts and his conservatives roll over for trump? They have already given him permission to break laws and excuse it as presidential "official acts." That one ruling, especially with the criminal we now have in the WH, slipped the US closer to a nation ruled by oligarchs and Mafia Bosses.

That is the $64,000 question.

 

[WEATHER53]

What internationalsl trade corporation appealed to them for a ruling and when did Trump have his day ?
Answers
None
Not

 

[dudmuck]

Don't second-guess yourself.
Only the supreme court is co-equal to the president.
Goofy district courts should not have authority above the president's Article 2 powers.

Trump already ignored supreme court on deportations