Below is my column in the New York Post on the decision yesterday finding that the Trump tariffs are invalid. What happens now will be, if nothing else, interesting. Dusk has come to Liberation Day. Trump has options, but the pressure will now be greater on Congress as bilateral trade agreements are moving forward.
Here is the column:
On Wednesday, President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” collided with deliberation day in the courts, and it did not go well. The Court of International Trade ruled that the President lacks the authority to impose his massive tariffs worldwide.
But all is not lost for Trump’s tariffs.
The three-judge panel held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) does not give the president “such unbounded authority.”
While some have criticized the court as a “judicial coup,” it is a well-reasoned and good-faith decision from judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Trump.
While the court, in my view, should have issued a stay pending appeal, a wide array of experts have questioned the authority under the IEEPA, which is designed to address a national emergency. The authority does not mention tariffs and has never been used for tariffs. There’s a good chance the Supreme Court upholds the ruling.
Rejecting Trump’s authority under IEEPA does not mean he lacks all authority for tariffs. The administration is correct in arguing that Congress has repeatedly deferred to presidents on tariffs, granting them sweeping authority.
For example, the ruling does not affect Trump’s “sector tariffs” under the Trade Expansion Act, which impose 25% levies on steel, aluminum, and auto imports.
Likewise, the court acknowledged that Trump has the authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act to impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address “fundamental international payment problems,” including trade deficits. After conducting further investigation into these problems, he can then impose long-term tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
But Congress may have to act if it wants to allow the Trump administration to continue to use tariffs as a trade strategy. A court just removed the stick Trump used to force other nations to the negotiating table.
Absent congressional action, it may even be possible for companies to seek reimbursement for past payments under the Trump tariffs. Both the suspension of tariffs and the risk of reimbursement could exacerbate the current deficit. The revenue from the tariffs was factored into the projections behind Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.”
Congress will need to demonstrate that it is nimble enough to operate effectively in this fast-paced market. It will also have to decide whether it wants to give Trump time to close his deals. Whether you agree with Trump’s gamble or not, we already have chips on the table.
Moreover, there is strong support for reciprocal tariffs to match the costs and barriers placed on our goods by other countries.
Congress has already indicated that it is willing to block Democratic measures to derail the negotiations. Recently, the Senate rejected an effort to undo Trump’s tariffs on most U.S. trading partners in a tied vote of 49 to 49 (with three Republican senators voting with the Democrats).
Trump may find that his razor-thin margin will not last much longer. Polls indicate that the public is wary of the impact of the tariffs. Many of us view tariffs as a tax on consumers and generally a poor idea.
Nevertheless, Trump was right about the market barriers and unfair treatment shown by other countries, including some of our closest allies. The resulting deals will be good for the United States and could represent the most significant move toward open markets in a generation.
These are difficult issues, and we need to tamp down the rhetoric. These judges are not the enemy. Neither is Trump. Trump is trying to use every possible law to achieve historic reforms. These judges are trying to guarantee that such priorities do not take precedence over the rule of law.
Just as Congress needs to be more nimble, so does the president. He can appeal this case while using less controversial means to maintain the tariff pressure on these countries as we work toward these bilateral trade agreements.
In the meantime, the Senate should use its leverage at this moment to not only push the administration for a fast resolution of these trade talks, but far greater reductions in federal spending.
Trump has shocked a long-comatose system in Washington. However, it has been more shock than therapy without free trade deals and deficit reductions.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
So shifting 90% of US manufacture to China and Vietnam is not an emergency, then what is? And why 3 shmucks get to appoint themselves to decide? TDS takes toll. Soon they will declare shape of pentagon unconstitutional.
Declare “a national emergency.”
So declare an “emergency.” Then use that declaration to assume unchecked powers to usurp rights and to issue diktats.
That doesn’t sound familiar, and horrifying, to you?
The War on Drugs? Yes, history teaches us well
Love it
Turley that the tariffs could “withstand judicial scrutiny,” as previous tariffs from Trump’s first administration were upheld after being dragged through court.
Yep Prez Trump won this issue back in 2017.
Not so fast. And a truly small wine & spirits importer (as opposed to lead plaintiff VOS) told me at this point, with her container landing next week, she doesn’t know if her tariff bill will be $30K or zero. $30K BEFORE any sales is pretty painful for a truly small, niche importer.
“$30K BEFORE any sales is pretty painful for a truly small, niche importer.”
Repeat that story for countless small and medium businesses across the economy. Then you have a small taste of the destructive consequences of Trump’s tariffs.
“These are difficult issues, and we need to tamp down the rhetoric. These judges are not the enemy. Trump is not the enemy.” WRONG. One side needs to tamp down its rhetoric are the Democrats, who have treated Trump and his supporters like enemies since 2016. Take a look at your own comments section (“The Trumptardism is toxic.”). We are sick and tired of lying down and taking the abuse. No more appeasement.
. . . tamp down the rhetoric . . .
The assassination chic on the left is palpable. The violent rhetoric and calls for violence against conservatives is almost daily. While Trump insults other politicians or government officials, Democrat media people and politicians have been insulting the average Republican voter, in increasingly aggressive and nasty ways. The once-beloved Tom Hanks even went on SNL and implied Trump voters were all MAGA-hat wearing racists.* That’s a major difference.
*I used to really like Tom Hanks. Now I can’t stand him. Shame on him.
I ignore the Nony Mice. Use a handle.
D.B. Benson be hip!
David B. Benson said: “I ignore the Nony Mice. Use a handle.”
You apparently have not been paying attention when people (like me) have on numerous occasions documented the many obstacles that WordPress places on creating a WP account that discourage those who only want to comment, not publish their own WP blog. In addition, changes made to this particular blog comment section about 2 -3 months ago removed the sub-form for many of us (again including me) to provide an alias handle without being logged in to a WordPress account. I have no idea if removing that capability is universal, or specific to particular browser/version/configuration particulars, but I shouldn’t *need* to know that, now should I? Maybe you should direct your snarky criticisms toward those who have created the policies that mitigate toward anonymous posts, rather than those who are directly and negatively impacted by those policies.
Sorry, Professor, but this sh** is getting old. I used to simply oppose the modern left; now, after the past five years, I’d like to see these petulant, aristocratic child-adults marginalized out of existence. It’s over for them, for good. We voted. They are obstructing that even though we did not vote for them. Period.
Two Republican presidents and one Democrat appointed these three judges. How is this a leftist obstruction?
Just because a president recommended them for appointment (not necessarily because they know them, but because it was another recommendaiton) doesn’t mean they follow that president’s morals
“doesn’t mean they follow that president’s morals”
Their morals, in general, are not the issue. The specific issue is the complete disregard by those judges to fulfill their oath to uphold the Constitution.
“a wide array of experts have questioned the authority under the IEEPA, which is designed to address a national emergency. ” YEAH? EXPERTS HAVE BEEN SCREWING US OVER AND OVER AGAIN. A WIDE ARRAY OF EXPERTS SAID HUNTER BIDEN’S LAPTOP WAS WAS RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION. A WIDE ARRAY OF EXPERTS SAID THE COVID LAB LEAK HYPOTHESIS WAS A CONSPIRACY THEORY. A WIDE ARRAY OF EXPERTS SAID THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS A COLLECTIVE RIGHT BELONGING TO THE STATES. A WIDE ARRAY OF EXPERTS HAVE SAID THAT MEN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO COMPETE WITH WOMEN IN SPORTS. A POX ON YOUR “EXPERTS”!
IEEPA is utterly unconstitutional.
Elaborate, ATS
“Nevertheless, Trump was right about the market barriers and unfair treatment shown by other countries, including some of our closest allies. The resulting deals will be good for the United States and could represent the most significant move toward open markets in a generation.” BUT DON’T YOU DARE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!
* I’m not qualified to comment.
While some have criticized the court as a “judicial coup,”…..
We are well past sugar coating the health of the USA Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches. Nothing that Democrats (ex-Presidents, Congresscritters, Federal Judges) bleat matters anymore.
Jake Tapper: If we’re going to be doing this, let’s just stick to the facts here okay when there is a
damaging report
Megyn Kelly: Jake, that’s what I’ve been doing all along. One of us didn’t miss the biggest story of the century when it comes to presidential politics, and one of us did.
This is a great move.
https://x.com/willchamberlain/status/1928152858882625809
Bondi explained: “…the ABA no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees’ qualifications, and its ratings invariably and demonstrably favor nominees put forth by Democratic administrations.”
Either President Trump controls the tariffs or Congress does; the rebel judicial branch is out immutably.
President Trump, please call Mike Johnson and get this done between the two of you.
Give Mike a call!
Power over tariffs is vested by the Constitution in Congress. The question is whether the IEEPA delegated to the President the power to raise tariffs in these circumstances, in a permissible way. This court, and then a D.C. District court, found that it did not. I think the courts are right. Congress is free to pass a new law that does this, or Trump could follow the specific laws that allow him to raise tariffs to solve balance-of-payments problems. It is unfortunate that these decisions might reduce Trump’s leverage in negotiations but that is not the courts’ issue.
“President Trump, please call Mike Johnson and get this done between the two of you.”
Good luck with that. The problem with your suggestion is that Mike Johnson is the Congressional equivalent to Hon Roberts.
“Congressional equivalent to Hon Roberts.”
“John Roberts”
OT:
As if anyone had had any doubts that Biden’s handlers were a group of blood-thirsty, power-driven Communists, now comes Bari Weiss. Bari uses the term politburo and Jake Tapper confesses it was a term Biden’s handlers used to call themselves. Madre mia!
Democrats have historically identified with Marxist Authoritarians throughout global history. One wonders what should happen to these Biden Politburo Communists who were not elected, never identified themselves to Americans and staged a coup d’état, under the approving eyes of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Charles Schumer, the DNC, the Deep State and their dutiful MSM commies.
A politburo (/ˈpɒlɪtbjʊəroʊ/) or political bureau is the highest political organ of the central committee in communist parties.[1] The term is also sometimes used to refer to similar organs in socialist and Islamist parties, such as the Political Bureau of Hamas.[2] Politburos are part of the governing structure in most former and existing communist states.
– Wiki
Bari Weiss: this group of tight advisers around Joe Biden who I want you to talk about that you call the politburo which is an interesting word choice tell me about the word choice and then tell me about those people who were really calling the shots around the president
Jake Tapper: so the politburo, not a term we came up with it’s a term from within the Biden administration uh as the name would suggest uh is a tightly held group of senior advisers. Mike Donan and Steve Rashetti foremost among them uh you also have individuals, floating in and out Ron Klein who’s chief of staff for the first couple years of the of the president’s term um Anita Dunn some senior uh individuals on the staff of Jill Biden um the the first
lady Anthony Bernal the chief of staff perhaps the most powerful first lady chief of staff ever
To those who have stated that Congress has the power to regulate Tariffs I’ll direct you to Article II, S2.C2.2.5 Congressional Executive Agreements: just one example.
ArtII.S2.C2.2.5 Congressional Executive Agreements
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Congress early authorized officers of the Executive Branch to enter into negotiations and to conclude agreements with foreign governments, authorizing the borrowing of money from foreign countries1 and appropriating money to pay off the government of Algiers to prevent pirate attacks on United States shipping.2 Perhaps the first formal authorization in advance of an executive agreement was enactment of a statute that permitted the Postmaster General to make arrangements with the Postmasters in any foreign country for the reciprocal receipt and delivery of letters and packets, through the post offices.3 Congress has also approved, usually by resolution, other executive agreements, such as the annexing of Texas and Hawaii and the acquisition of Samoa.4 A prolific source of executive agreements has been the authorization of reciprocal arrangements between the United States and other countries for the securing of protection for patents, copyrights, and trademarks.5
The most copious source of executive agreements has been legislation which provided authority for entering into reciprocal trade agreements with other nations.6 Such agreements in the form of treaties providing for the reciprocal reduction of duties subject to implementation by Congress were frequently entered into,7 but beginning with the Tariff Act of 1890,8 Congress began to insert provisions authorizing the Executive to bargain over reciprocity with no necessity of subsequent legislative action. The authority was widened in successive acts.9 Then, in the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934,10 Congress authorized the President to enter into agreements with other nations for reductions of tariffs and other impediments to international trade and to put the reductions into effect through proclamation.11
In Field v. Clark,12 legislation conferring authority on the President to conclude trade agreements was sustained against the objection that it attempted an unconstitutional delegation of both legislative and treaty-making powers. The Court met the first objection with an extensive review of similar legislation from the inauguration of government under the Constitution. The second objection it met with a curt rejection: What has been said is equally applicable to the objection that the third section of the act invests the President with treaty-making power. The Court is of opinion that the third section of the act of October 1, 1890, is not liable to the objection that it transfers legislative and treaty-making power to the President.13 Although two Justices disagreed, the question has never been revived. However, in B. Altman & Co. v. United States,14 decided twenty years later, a collateral question was passed upon. This was whether an act of Congress that gave the federal circuit courts of appeal jurisdiction of cases in which the validity or construction of any treaty . . . was drawn in question embraced a case involving a trade agreement which had been made under the sanction of the Tariff Act of 1897. The Court answered: While it may be true that this commercial agreement, made under authority of the Tariff Act of 1897, § 3, was not a treaty possessing the dignity of one requiring ratification by the Senate of the United States, it was an international compact, negotiated between the representatives of two sovereign nations and made in the name and on behalf of the contracting countries, and dealing with important commercial relations between the two countries, and was proclaimed by the President. If not technically a treaty requiring ratification, nevertheless, it was a compact authorized by the Congress of the United States, negotiated and proclaimed under the authority of its President. We think such a compact is a treaty under the Circuit Court of Appeals Act, and, where its construction is directly involved, as it is here, there is a right of review by direct appeal to this court.15
The most extensive delegation of authority ever made by Congress to the President to enter into executive agreements occurred within the field of the cognate powers of the two departments, the field of foreign relations, and took place at a time when war appeared to be in the offing and was in fact only a few months away. The legislation referred to is the Lend-Lease Act of March 11, 1941,16 by which the President was empowered for over two years—and subsequently for additional periods whenever he deemed it in the interest of the national defense to do so—to authorize the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or the head of any other department or agency of the Government, to manufacture in the government arsenals, factories, and shipyards, or otherwise procure, to the extent that available funds made possible, defense articles—later amended to include foodstuffs and industrial products—and sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, the same to the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States, and on any terms that he deems satisfactory. Under this authorization the United States entered into Mutual Aid Agreements under which the government furnished its allies in World War II with 40 billion dollars’ worth of munitions of war and other supplies.
Overlapping of the treaty-making power through congressional-executive cooperation in international agreements is also demonstrated by the use of resolutions approving the United States joining of international organizations17 and participating in international conventions.18
Topics
Executive Powers
Footnotes
Jump to essay-1Act of Aug. 4, 1790, 1 Stat. 138.
Jump to essay-2W. McClure, International Executive Agreements 41 (1941).
Jump to essay-3Id. at 38–40. The statute was 1 Stat. 232, 239, 246 (1792).
Jump to essay-4McClure, supra note 2, at 62–70.
Jump to essay-5Id. at 78–81; Samuel B. Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement 127-131 (2d ed. 1916).
Jump to essay-6Id. at 121–27; McClure, supra note 2, at 83–92, 173–89.
Jump to essay-7Id. at 8, 59–60.
Jump to essay-8Tariff Act of 1890, Pub. L. No. 51-1243, § 3, 26 Stat. 567, 612.
Jump to essay-9Tariff Act of 1897, Pub. L. No. 55-11, § 3, 30 Stat. 151, 203; Tariff Act of 1909, Pub. L. No. 61-5, 36 Stat. 11, 82.
Jump to essay-10Trade Agreements Act, Pub. L. No. 73-316, 48 Stat. 943, § 350(a) (1934) (codified at 19 U.S.C. §§ 1351–1354).
Jump to essay-11See the continued expansion of the authority. Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Pub. L. No. 87-794, 76 Stat. 872, § 201 (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1821); Trade Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-618, 88 Stat. 1982 (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. §§ 2111, 2115, 2131(b), 2435). Congress has, with respect to the authorization to the President to negotiate multilateral trade agreements under the auspices of GATT, constrained itself in considering implementing legislation, creating a fast-track procedure under which legislation is brought up under a tight timetable and without the possibility of amendment. 19 U.S.C. §§ 2191–2194.
Jump to essay-12143 U.S. 649 (1892).
Jump to essay-13143 U.S. at 694. See also Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981), in which the Court sustained a series of implementing actions by the President pursuant to executive agreements with Iran in order to settle the hostage crisis. The Court found that Congress had delegated to the President certain economic powers underlying the agreements and that his suspension of claims powers had been implicitly ratified over time by Congress’s failure to set aside the asserted power. See also Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 29–30 n.6 (1982).
Jump to essay-14224 U.S. 583 (1912).
Jump to essay-15Id. at 601.
Jump to essay-16Pub. L. No. 77-11, 55 Stat. 31 (1941).
Jump to essay-17E.g., S. J. Res. 131, 48 Stat. 1182 (1934), authorizing the President to accept membership for the United States in the International Labor Organization.
Jump to essay-18See Edward S. Corwin, Presidential Power and the Constitution 216 (Richard Loss, ed., 1976).
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artll-S2-C2-2-5/ALDE_00001151/%5B‘tariff,%20’treaty’%5D#ALDF_00002814
“Dusk Comes to Liberation Day…”
Early dawn after the dusk…Court of Appeals lifts the ban.
BIG QUESTION:
“HUNTER BIDEN. DID YOU PARDON YOURSELF?”
https://x.com/JackPosobiec/status/1928173866511200421
Pardons null and void? I hope DOJ finds out, though they have a lot on their plates just now.
The “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) report, spearheaded by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and backed by the Trump administration, claims to be grounded in “gold-standard” science with over 500 cited sources. However, a NOTUS investigation revealed numerous citation issues, including broken links, incorrect attributions, and even completely fabricated studies. As an example, the report cites a nonexistent study on adolescent anxiety supposedly co-authored by epidemiologist Katherine Keyes, who confirmed she had never written such a paper. The referenced issue of JAMA Pediatrics does not contain any such article, raising serious questions about the report’s credibility.
Several researchers whose work was cited in the report have spoken out, noting that their studies were mischaracterized or entirely fabricated. A statistician involved in a review of antidepressants clarified that their study did not include psychotherapy and thus could not support the MAHA report’s claims about therapy’s effectiveness. Similarly, another researcher pointed out that her study on screen time was incorrectly cited as being about children and published in the wrong journal.
Apparently, they used ChatGPT to write the report.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Why did they use ChatGPT ?????
Obviously because the real experts who actually know what they are talking about have all been fired.
What news source did this come from? Noticed you failed to show any.
That would mean (hear-say)
https://gizmodo.com/rfk-jr-s-make-america-healthy-again-report-cites-fake-studies-2000608850
You can Google to find many other reports
Why do you MAGA morons always play this stupid game of demanding citations.
Are you incapable of doing your own research, or do you prefer to accept the MAGA propaganda as the only true source of information
Also, Karoline Leavitt was specifically asked if AI was used to write the report.
She waffled and obfuscated and refused to directly answer the question, which is effectively a yes answer.
If AI had NOT been used she would have absolutely denied it and accused the press of making stuff up.
Because you’re an obnoxious crybaby twit who come here every day to post your nonsense as if ANYONE here gives a flying fvck
Get a life, you ridiculous piece of shit.
You’re an obnoxious crybaby twit who come here every day to post your nonsense as if ANYONE here gives a flying fvck. Get a life, you ridiculous piece of shit.
Stop. You answered your own questions. They are MAGA. They are morons.
Ron Reagan.
Just what we need, More Rons!
Because you communists cite the manifesto, Einstein!
Already a little stale. For an elderly gentleman, he’s not easy to keep up with.
Breaking: The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reinstated the tariffs.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/29/blocked-trump-tariffs-trade-court-appeal.html
It’s a temporary stay of the lower court’s order pending review of a motion on the merits. Here’s the order:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105.7.0_1.pdf
The Trumptardism is toxic.
I’m sure crybaby Dennis will be along shortly to update Jonathan.
Not.
Remember a stay is not the same as reinstatement.
More legal fraud. The three-judge panel have no authority over US tariff policy. That policy rests soley with the Executive Branch of Government.
Turley, however, ludicrously states that “[w]hile some have criticized the court as a “judicial coup,” it is a well-reasoned and good-faith decision from judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Trump.” Turley mentions these Presidents that have appointed the judges as though to suggest that judges’ decision wasn’t political, since two come from Republicans and one from Democrats. But the reality is that all three of the judges are corrupt Deep State operators working on behalf of China, regardless of who appointed them. The American people didn’t elect any of these fraudulent fake-judges to run the country.
I do believe that Congress does need to step in here, but not for the reason that the judges claim. Congress needs to step in to defund all of the lawfare activist (i.e., fake) judges and start over with a new set of judges, putting in rules that limit their terms as judges to a maximum of 7 years. Congress should also institute tribunerals where all the activist judges are called before a specially created Criminal Court to investigate, prosecute, and imprison the criminal rogue judges who violate the law in any shape or form. And there must be a special team of investigators that look into the finances of these rogue judges continuously to identify evidence of graft, bribes, kickbacks, and all the other tricks of the trade that thse rogue criminal judegs have been engaging in over the years. That would cause such rogue activist lawfare fake judges to think twice before they commit to various fraudulent rulings.
* I know! Just import cheap crap and pay low prices for cheap crap. Grow and raise good stuff, premium high quality and export to nation that can afford it at production costs 20 per hour, transport, air or water freight, fuel cost OR just sell it to the upper classes domestic and worldwide.
Fixed it.
^^^ OR just import cheap crap, repackage it and export the crap at high prices as made in America at 20 bucks per hour. Repackage those crap nikes for 1.50 and export at 150.00 huh?
Or make your own crap at high cost and buy it for high cost … oh, no one wants to work? So the plan is import crap and have the government print money to buy it and give it to you. 37 trillion….
Shoot people, try to shoot the president, burn Tesla, rob and steal. It’s not the lower class. It’s the underclass. What is that? Poverty + abject immorality.
“Working on behalf of China”
Any evidence of this?
No, it’s a secret.