Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
This tariff court case could rein in the rampant Trump presidency
Trump is a hare, and the federal courts are a tortoise. We know how that fable turned out.
This tariff court case could rein in the rampant Trump presidency
— Curly sue (@moocowsue.bsky.social) 2025-07-25T21:26:33.154Z
Donald Trump’s destructive “Liberation Day†tariffs, announced April 2, should result in a constructive judicial ruling that significantly sedates today’s hyperactive presidency.
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/07/25/trump-tariffs-power-courts/
Donald Trump’s destructive “Liberation Day” tariffs, announced April 2, should result in a constructive judicial ruling that significantly sedates today’s hyperactive presidency. Next Thursday, a federal appeals court will hear oral arguments about this: May the president, by making a declaration (that he claims is exempt from judicial review) of a national “emergency” and “an unusual and extraordinary threat,” impose tariffs (taxes paid by U.S. consumers) whenever he wants, at whatever level he wants, against whatever country he wants, on whatever products he wants, for as long as he wants?.....
Trump relies on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. But it nowhere includes the term “tariff” or any of its synonyms, and no previous president has claimed that it authorizes tariffs. Today’s president argues that IEEPA’s conferred power to “regulate” trade implies the presidential power to tax it. This is an astonishingly radical claim because hundreds of statutes authorize innumerable agencies to “regulate,” but not to tax. Congress has often authorized tariffs, but always with specific substantive, temporal and procedural limitations on presidential discretion.
IEEPA’s authority can be exercised only in an emergency involving “an unusual and extraordinary threat,” which trade deficits — the president’s obsession — are not. Unusual? He says they have been “persistent” for half a century.
Recently, the Supreme Court said the Federal Communications Commission’s “regulation” of communications carriers could include an FCC-imposed tax on them but only because Congress explicitly authorized this. Otherwise, the FCC tax would violate two related rules, the major questions doctrine and the nondelegation doctrine......
The president claims his declaration of an “emergency” is unreviewable because it involves foreign relations. But tariffs, which have domestic consequences and purposes, properly are congressional exercises of a constitutionally enumerated power and must come from statutes.
Today’s president is a hare, darting here and there. The judiciary is generally a tortoise, slow because it is deliberative. But you know the fable. And here is a fact: This tariff case could markedly restrain this rampant presidency.
Trump relies on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. But it nowhere includes the term “tariff” or any of its synonyms, and no previous president has claimed that it authorizes tariffs. Today’s president argues that IEEPA’s conferred power to “regulate” trade implies the presidential power to tax it. This is an astonishingly radical claim because hundreds of statutes authorize innumerable agencies to “regulate,” but not to tax. Congress has often authorized tariffs, but always with specific substantive, temporal and procedural limitations on presidential discretion.
IEEPA’s authority can be exercised only in an emergency involving “an unusual and extraordinary threat,” which trade deficits — the president’s obsession — are not. Unusual? He says they have been “persistent” for half a century.
Recently, the Supreme Court said the Federal Communications Commission’s “regulation” of communications carriers could include an FCC-imposed tax on them but only because Congress explicitly authorized this. Otherwise, the FCC tax would violate two related rules, the major questions doctrine and the nondelegation doctrine......
The president claims his declaration of an “emergency” is unreviewable because it involves foreign relations. But tariffs, which have domestic consequences and purposes, properly are congressional exercises of a constitutionally enumerated power and must come from statutes.
Today’s president is a hare, darting here and there. The judiciary is generally a tortoise, slow because it is deliberative. But you know the fable. And here is a fact: This tariff case could markedly restrain this rampant presidency.
I strongly believe that these tariffs are not legal