Sad trombone for his lordship
“The M.O. of the extremist Republican Party: find the lines, cross them, dare people to push them back. Courts have. So now the GOP is going after the courts,” I wrote ahead of the 2016 election. That was near prescient.
The U.S. Court of International Trade on Wednesday slapped down His Majesty’s tariffs as outside his authority. Whaddya figure? The ruling was unanimous.
Trump overstepped. Plaintiffs pushed back (AP):
The lawsuit was filed by a group of small businesses, including a wine importer, V.O.S. Selections, whose owner has said the tariffs are having a major impact and his company may not survive.
A dozen states also filed suit, led by Oregon. “This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made on the president’s whim,” Attorney General Dan Rayfield said.
The bipartisan panel of judges pushed back too.
The White House responded with more royalist bluster (NPR):
“It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. “President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness.”
So many deals, so much losing
The Guardian earlier this morning reported the White House making noise about appealing the ruling:
White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett has said there are three trade deals nearly done and he expects more despite a court ruling blocking Donald Trump from imposing his sweeping tariff regime.
“There are many, many deals coming. And there were three that basically look like they’re done,” Hassett said in an interview with Fox Business Network.
Hassett dismissed a US court of international trade ruling yesterday that blocked most tariffs and found Trump had overstepped his authority as the work of “activist judges”. He said he was confident the administration would win on appeal.
Until then, the court’s injunction is permanent (CNN):
The court ruled in favor of a permanent injunction, potentially grinding Trump’s global tariffs to a halt before “deals” with most other trading partners have even been reached. The court ordered a window of 10 calendar days for administrative orders “to effectuate the permanent injunction.” That means the bulk – but not all – of Trump’s tariffs would be put in a standstill if the ruling holds up in appeal and, potentially, with the Supreme Court.
The order halts Trump’s 30% tariffs on China, his 25% tariffs on some goods imported from Mexico and Canada, and the 10% universal tariffs on most goods coming into the United States. It does not, however, affect the 25% tariffs on autos, auto parts, steel or aluminum, which were subject to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – a different law than the one Trump cited for his broader trade actions.
Trump tried to stretch the International Emergency Economic Powers Act beyond the breaking point, claiming powers for the presidency to impose tariffs that it does not grant.
Trump also cited IEEPA in his 20% tariffs on China and 25% tariffs on many goods from Mexico and Canada designed to target fentanyl trafficking into the United States.
But the Trump administration has not met that criteria for an emergency, the plaintiffs alleged. The lawsuit also alleges IEEPA doesn’t give the president the power to enact tariffs in the first place, and even if it was interpreted to, it “would be an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s power to impose tariffs,” according to a statement.
Meantime, more Trumpian chaos, suggests Catherine Rampell:
What’s more, she suggests, Trump now may invoke other statutes and trigger more lawsuits.
Here we go again.
* * * * *
Have you fought dictatorship today?
No Kings Day, June 14th
The Resistance Lab
Choose Democracy
Indivisible: A Guide to Democracy on the Brink
You Have Power
Chop Wood, Carry Water
Thirty lonely but beautiful actions
Attending a Protest Surveillance Self-Defense