Is There a Dignified Legal Way, Preferably in Latin, to Say "Holy Shit"?
A court just threw out Trump's whole trade agenda
It will take me a while to digest this:
A panel of federal judges on Wednesday blocked President Trump from imposing some of his steepest tariffs on China and other U.S. trading partners, finding in two cases that he vastly overstepped his ability to issue those expansive duties under federal law.
The ruling, by the U.S. Court of International Trade, delivered an early yet significant setback to Mr. Trump in his campaign to strike a series of agreements that reorient the nation’s trading relationships, setting up a legal fight that could soon reach the Supreme Court.
The cases centered on the president’s use of a 1977 federal economic emergency law to issue many of his steep duties, including some of his tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, and his “reciprocal” rates on much of the rest of the world, which Mr. Trump announced and then suspended in April.
The thing is, it has been obvious all along that Trump’s use of the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act to justify Smoot-Hawley level tariffs was a massive abuse of power. I mean, since when are 4 percent unemployment and 2.5 percent inflation an emergency justifying the reversal of 90 years of policy? But I guess I just assumed that things like that didn’t matter anymore.
And I’ve just had a very long day, much of it spent drafting a detailed takedown of the vile crypto legislation now before Congress. I guess I’ll hold that for a bit.
Some more coherent thoughts in the morning, after a gallon or so of coffee.
Sanctum excrementum!
The court held the 1977 law, called IEEPA, gave no authority to the president to levy tariffs. Article I of the constitution gives Congress the taxing authority unless they delegate it. But the court found that IEEPA doesn’t delegate it to the president except in a national emergency and the Trump admin failed to show that there is one. All three judges agreed.