Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“A U.S. trade court blocked most of President Donald Trump's tariffs in a sweeping ruling on Wednesday that found the president overstepped his authority by imposing across-the-board duties on imports from U.S. trading partners. The Court of International Trade said the U.S. Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce with other countries…
“The court invalidated with immediate effect all of Trump's orders on tariffs since January that were rooted in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law meant to address ‘unusual and extraordinary’ threats during a national emergency. The court was not asked to address some industry-specific tariffs Trump has issued on automobiles, steel and aluminum, using a different statute.” Reuters
“A federal appeals court temporarily reinstated the most sweeping of President Donald Trump's tariffs on Thursday… The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington said it was pausing the lower court's ruling to consider the government's appeal, and ordered the plaintiffs in the cases to respond by June 5 and the administration by June 9.” Reuters
Many on both sides agree with the decision, arguing that only Congress has the authority to impose sweeping tariffs:
“No other President has used IEEPA to impose tariffs. As the trade court explains, Richard Nixon used the law’s precursor, the Trading With the Enemy Act, in 1971 to impose 10% tariffs for a short period to address a balance of payments problem. The Justice Department said Mr. Trump’s tariffs are no different. Not so…
“As the panel notes, [the] Nixon tariffs were upheld by an appeals court because they were a ‘limited surcharge’ and ‘temporary measure calculated to help meet a particular national emergency, which is quite different from imposing whatever tariff rates he deems desirable.’ The latter is what Mr. Trump did, at one point jacking up rates to 145% on China… The Constitution doesn’t let the President ignore Congress and do whatever he wants.”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal
“All these problems were foreseeable. It’s why no president ever tried to use tariffs in this manner before. Moreover, it was unnecessary to go to these lengths. In his first term, Trump used Commerce Department, International Trade Commission, and U.S. trade representative (USTR) findings to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, solar components, and a host of goods from China…
“Many people didn’t like those tariffs, but none were successfully challenged in court… Pushing the boundaries of legality has been both a hallmark and an Achilles’ heel for Trump over the past several months. When he has succeeded, like with seemingly being allowed to fire members of independent agencies, he has entrenched executive power. But when he falters, like with this layup on tariffs, he has taken parts of his agenda that were fully realizable and turned them into dust.”
David Dayen, American Prospect
Other opinions below.
“The good news is that the president’s plans to impose tariffs on almost every country on the planet will now be subjected to something approaching the legal and constitutional scrutiny that they should have had in the first place. The rule of law, thankfully, has struck back, at least for now…
“The bad news is that Congress still shows no sign of reining Mr Trump in, as it should. Ironically, the IEEPA was originally a Jimmy Carter-era legislative attempt to boost congressional oversight of presidential emergency powers. Under Mr Trump, that role has been trashed. The worst of all outcomes would be for Congress to now give Mr Trump the powers to which he has laid claim.”
Editorial Board, The Guardian
“Trump’s tariff agenda is unpopular, and not just among economists and investors. Silver Bulletin’s issue-based poll averages show the president’s net approval rating on trade is minus-ten points. More important, his net approval rating on inflation, a more significant issue, is minus 19.7 percent. A Gallup survey last month showed that an overwhelming 89 percent of Americans — and even a majority of Republicans — think Trump’s tariffs will raise prices…
“Probably the best practical outcome for Trump would be a judicial block on his tariffs that he could bitterly denounce to the applause of his MAGA echo chamber, but that would protect him from the consequences of his own policies. Even pushing the final reckoning on tariffs past the 2026 midterms could benefit Republicans, many of whom hate protectionism… Getting rid of this major irritant to the GOP’s relationship with its Wall Street clientele could also do wonders for 2026 fundraising.”
Ed Kilgore, New York Magazine
“There’s simply no good-faith interpretation of the constitutional order that envisions an economy being subjected to the daily unpredictable whims of a president. Dozens of times since ‘Liberation Day,’ Trump has altered his trade policy, sometimes making U-turns, even changing the entire reasoning for the policy…
“Trump advisor Stephen Miller complained that [the] ‘judicial coup is out of control.’ Yes, numerous political courts have acted badly. However, we should distinguish between judges who usurp the White House’s legitimate power and restrain illegitimate ones. The Court of International Trade was created to adjudicate U.S. customs and trade disputes. That job seems exceptionally relevant when the executive branch is wielding a power it [was] never intended to possess.”
David Harsanyi, Washington Examiner
Some argue, “Is Congress’s delegation of tariff authority to the President constitutional? Yes. It’s a logical extension of his foreign policy powers, as has been recognized by every Congress and every President since 1934… Donald Trump has launched a trade war. You may or may not like that, just as you may or may not have agreed with Lyndon Johnson deploying troops to Santo Domingo, or Ronald Reagan invading Grenada, or George Bush seizing Panama…
“Congress has, for almost a century, agreed with every President during that time, that their prior grant of legislative authority to the Executive Branch over economic sanctions and trade relations is near-absolute, subject only to their further action. And moreover, Congress has given the courts no authority to obstruct that, particularly in mid-conflict. These are foreign conflicts, after all.”
Rod D. Martin, Substack
A libertarian's take
“The court's ruling leaned on two bits of jurisprudence that conservatives have long championed as a way for courts to check executive authority: the ‘nondelegation’ and ‘major questions’ doctrines. The former says, in effect, that Congress cannot delegate its core lawmaking authority to other branches of the government. The latter says the same thing in reverse: That major questions of policy must be decided by Congress, not the other branches…
“Trump's allies are simply wrong when they claim that the administration is the victim of judicial activism in the tariff ruling. The Court of International Trade's decision to strike down the tariffs and draw clear lines around the president's emergency economic powers is well-reasoned and appropriate. It's also the sort of ruling that conservatives would be universally cheering if it were brought down against a Democratic president's power grab.”
Eric Boehm, Reason
These 15 Mind-Bending Murals Turn the Mundane Into the Memorable.
Smithsonian Magazine
