Tariffs are on for now thanks to appeals court in win for Trump
By: Rachel Lerman (The Washington Post)
The courts block it. The courts unblock it. The courts sidestep the question. We hear ad nauseum who appointed who.
What's it all mean? It means it is time for Federal Judges to be elected rather than appointed.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Donald Trump’s tariffs can continue for now, after an appeals court granted the administration’s request to temporarily stay a lower court’s order.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Thursday afternoon that it would temporarily pause the effects of a decision from the Court of International Trade, which ruled Wednesday that most of Trump’s tariffs were illegal and must be halted.
The Trump administration said in a court filing earlier in the day that it would ask the Supreme Court for emergency relief if the appeals court didn’t quickly pause the ruling.
The pause is just the latest move in a tumultuous trade war, which began earlier this year when Trump announced sweeping tariffs against nearly every country around the world. The back-and-forth tariff policies, which have changed constantly this year, have created uncertainty for businesses that import and export products, and for consumers who rely on products manufactured abroad.
The Court of International Trade dealt a blow to Trump’s aggressive trade policy Wednesday when it ruled that Trump exceeded his authority in imposing tariffs on all imported goods.
The law he used to impose the tariffs, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not allow for such sweeping levies, it said. The court noted that IEEPA says the president may only use his emergency powers “to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.”
The Trump administration quickly asked the federal appeals court to pause the decision. On Thursday, the court did just that, asking both the administration and the states and businesses who brought the suit to respond in early June.
The Liberty Justice Center, which filed one of the original suits challenging the tariffs that led to this decision, said in a statement Thursday that the pause is “merely a procedural step as the court considers the government's request for a longer stay pending appeal.”
Separately, a second federal court also ruled Thursday that many of Trump’s tariffs are unlawful. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the emergency economic powers law Trump invoked to impose many of the tariffs did not enable him to “unilaterally impose, revoke, pause, reinstate and adjust tariffs to reorder the global economy.”
The Trump administration has protested the courts’ involvement in its trade policy. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a briefing Thursday that the courts shouldn’t have a role in this issue.
“The president’s rationale for imposing these powerful tariffs was legally sound and grounded in common sense,” she said.
Legal experts have told The Washington Post that the lawsuits are likely to succeed if they make it to the Supreme Court. Tim Meyer, the co-director of the Center for International and Comparative Law at Duke University Law School, said the president is “overwriting” legislation that Congress passed to levy tariffs.
“When the White House is itself touting this as the largest tax increase in American history, I think that’s going to make the justices sit back and think the Constitution gives Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to levy duties, impose tariffs and to regulate foreign commerce,” said Meyer, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a Trump-nominated Supreme Court justice, when he served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.
The ruling adds fresh uncertainty to the world of American importers and more than one dozen ongoing U.S. trade negotiations, including those with the European Union and China.
Tags
Who is online
246 visitors
If the courts are going to play political games then the courts need to be accountable to the electorate. Time to end the graft of judicial appointments and let the voters have a voice. The reform is long overdue.
Damn the voters when it comes to judges. It is hard enough to get right done by rule of law. The last thing we need is popular vote (or whatever it attempts to label itself) deciding what is best for all of us. Furthermore, the whole court system would collapse in on itself with judges attempting to be 'PEOPLE PLEASERS.'
Why do you think they are playing political games?
The last thing we need is a judge making decisions on how many votes it gets him. Let's just have lynch mobs and be done.
Truth is truth; it is not 'negotiable.' I don't know from where these kooky ideas keep abounding. . . why do people wish to undermine our society so or bend it till it 'breaks' or turns 'belly up'?
See @1.4.17
Why should the courts be subservient to political party priorities? Why should the courts be exempt from democracy?
And you think having politicians as judges improves that situation? They'll be hanging gays in Alabama and burning Republicans at the stake in Oregon.
The courts uphold the rule of law and protect it from the rule of the mob (also knows as the tyranny of the majority).
Hasn't happened in states that made judgeships elected offices. It is possible to legislate that the elections would be non-partisan; prohibiting the candidate to declare affiliation with any political party.
Using elections to seat judges is not a new, novel, or unknown process. Using elections has become a democratic method of limiting the length of term while allowing for reelection.
Part of the problem is that judgeships are lifetime appointments. There needs to be reforms that limit length of term while also allowing means for reappointment.
What you are suggesting is that the rule of law is incompatible with democracy. Why? Because the majority is also fickle and feckless?
We recently had an ugly sordid episode where a District Attorney ran for office on the platform of the promise to go after a single unpopular private citizen because of his political affiliation. When she won, she then prosecuted that citizen on the grounds he had fraudulently harmed businesses... who testified that no harm had occurred.
The elected judge.... also a member of the party opposing the defendant.... ignored the reports of licensed professionals and denied the defendant access to a jury trial.
Meanwhile.... back at the ranch.... the DA in question was committing the very crime for which she prosecuted her political enemy.
Right. Like Bernie Sanders isn't affiliated with any political party.....
Yes. That's why checks and balances exist. Judges are appointed specifically to allow them not to give a fuck about the next election.
How do you know they are? Reasonable, educated people can disagree about a thing without politics entering into it.
Voters have a voice. They vote for people who appoint judges. In my opinion, people voting directly for judges is a dumb idea (and we do it here). Regular people know next to nothing about the law, much less what makes a good judge. And that goes at least double or triple at the appellate level.
Why is political bias among the judiciary such a huge problem in America? I have never seen political bias raised concerning courts and judgments in Canada.
I can answer that: Because apparently Trump and MAGAites have decided that SCOTUS has left a door 'ajar' for Trump to act with impunity and being Trump he bites the hand that 'fed' (blessed) him. (As the scorpion said to the turtle that attempted to ferret it across the waterway: 'You knew what I was when you gave me the power to go after you.' (Paraphrased.)
Put a bunch of activist progressives together, they'll tend to agree.
. The court’s job, she told Wells, is to do the right thing when politicians won’t
That's not what judges do. That's what a politician does.
[ deleted. ]
The [ ✘ ] Conservative Judges buck the partisan result all the time. Every big case, it's always a question of how the conservatives will vote because they aren't partisan and do vote against "Trump" or the republican position all the time. Yet despite decades of this being true, you'll still see progressives accusing the conservatives of being partisan. We can actually see people clinging to their anti-reality out before our eyes.
Yep! What is that conservative chant that is resounding across the land: Mag
More conservative contorting of truth. Conservative judges are a surprise when they support right causes, because it is a rarity. By the way, it is a worthy surprise when right wins because it is good for this country's people and its rule of law.
I am sorry that MAGAites wish to have this fight, but it is what it is. Amen.
Liberals do not or should not seek the destruction of the conservative party or democracy. That as an implication is a(n). . . untruth.
I, for one, am glad to see conservative and liberal judges and justices follow the rule of law to its end. Even when it leaves me 'wanting' politically. At least, I know that it is above board—mostly. It is that dirty, shitty, backroom, maneuvering, scandalous tribal shit that sickens and pollutes the mind and body of this republic.
Complete horse shit. Most progressive judges and most conservative judges are fair arbiters of the law and do not let their politics inform their judicial rulings. There are rare exceptions where it doesn't seem like the law was followed and the rulings seem to lean towards partisanship, but I do not believe and have never seen actual evidence that it is a regular occurrence on either side.
But the idea that conservatives aren't partisan, but progressives are, is nothing but moronic nonsense.
Besides as is the case in the supreme court: so-called, "liberal" justices are seeking to give more liberty, freedom, and expression to the citizenry, while so-called, "conservative" justices are intent on pissing down their legs onto the heads, neck, and shoulders of those prior justices who left their precedences of opinion on the rule of law. Justice Thomas is a big 'offender' who arguably has never respected much in the opinion of his liberal colleagues on the highest bench. He even says so much as he right now is waiting to regress the nation. Albeit, he will leave interracial marriage untouched. . . why. . . because he is not a critical thinker but a fraud.
The lunatic strikes again
=================================
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
The U.S. Court of International Trade incredibly ruled against the United States of America on desperately needed Tariffs but, fortunately, the full 11 Judge Panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court has just stayed the order by the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade. Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of “TRUMP?” What other reason could it be?
I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real “sleazebag” named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions. He openly brags how he controls Judges, and even Justices of the United States Supreme Court — I hope that is not so, and don’t believe it is! In any event, Leo left The Federalist Society to do his own “thing.” I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten!
With all of that being said, I am very proud of many of our picks, but very disappointed in others. They always must do what’s right for the Country! In this case, it is only because of my successful use of Tariffs that many Trillions of Dollars have already begun pouring into the U.S.A. from other Countries, money that, without these Tariffs, we would not be able to get. It is the difference between having a rich, prosperous, and successful United States of America, and quite the opposite. The ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade is so wrong, and so political! Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY. Backroom “hustlers” must not be allowed to destroy our Nation! The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs. In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around D.C. for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other Countries that are treating us unfairly. If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same!
This decision is being hailed all over the World by every Country, other than the United States of America. Radical Left Judges, together with some very bad people, are destroying America. Under this decision, Trillions of Dollars would be lost by our Country, money that will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. It would be the harshest financial ruling ever leveled on us as a Sovereign Nation. The President of the United States must be allowed to protect America against those that are doing it Economic and Financial harm. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
2.83k
ReTruths
9.58k
Likes
Just delusional and self-interested. If Trump feels that strong about making the country great again perhaps he should end his globe-trotting to make billions for one man-himself-and give his ill-gotten gains and future gains while president over to the treasury.
Make America Great Again! /s
Trump , what a sad-ass old man who in all his "getting" never seems to grasp that he will one day leave all this crap behind and the only thing that will be remembered about him is how he treated. . .people; the people under his 'control.' For all his wealth and wealth potential, he is a sadly poor man in spirit.
Conservative judges are a surprise when they support right causes, because it is a rarity.
Lol. How predictable. Thank you for providing me an example of what I was talking about. You exclusively define the "right" decision with one that coincides with your impeccably left wing morals, just like every other partisan left wing judge. I notice how you failed to acknowledge your inability to reference a single time one of the partisan progressive justices broke ranks with the others to provide a meaningful vote for a conservative majority.
ven when it leaves me 'wanting' politically
By all means, point to a case where you believe the conservative justices were correct legally even though you opposed it morally.
. We can actually see people clinging to their anti-reality out before our eyes.
What's moronic nonsense is clinging to a fantasy world. I can provide dozens of examples of conservatives breaking ranks to provide progressives with a win. Just name one case where a progressive judge acted independently and provided a meaningful vote to the conservatives on a politically charged case.
That is the relevant (nearly all) of the comment I wrote. I repost it, so maybe, just maybe you can read it all.
I made my case. I stand by it. Conservatives are meddlers. Just look around at Trump trying to meddle in court business (alone). Why because he and MAGAites want to 'ball up their little fists and punch everybody in the world in the nose - harrrrd!
Messy. Angry. Belligerent. Bellicose. One might get the idea that the country belongs to "you." Nope it belongs to all of us.
The sooner that is realized the better for us all.
Ah quoting Bruce Pardy, a leading fan of WEXITing all the way to becoming 51.
Yup, he calls 'em as he sees 'em!
Likely because of the political bias in the nominating and confirmation process. Political polarization has transformed judicial appointments into a political party agenda. The problem caused by political polarization is exacerbated because judgeships are lifetime appointments.
Reforming the process to make a judicial office an elected office would end the lifetime appointment. An elected office also takes some power over the courts away from the political parties. Several states have turned judgeships into elected positions for those reasons. And the judges can run for reelection.
Thanks for that, Nerm. Canada appoints all levels of the judiciary, but the process is such that any political aspect is overwhelmed by the other means and requirements for appointment. Here is how Supreme Court of Canada justices are appointed.
What that left out is that to qualify, the candidate must be a Canadian lawyer with at least 10 years of exemplary law practice. Although it did not say so, I would assume that the candidate not have a criminal record.
“The president’s rationale for imposing these powerful tariffs was legally sound and grounded in common sense,” she said
Yeah, it sure was. It's being used as a tool to bring other countries into negotiations for fairer mutually beneficial trade policies, and it's working as intended.
Lots of policies could work politically. But we don't live by policy alone: We have a foundational document that is the stickability that keeps us all connected. Undermine it and we dissolve into chaos. (We're damn a constitutional crisis as it is.) In fact, the only thing that is keeping this nation from a constitutional crisis is our awareness of how close we are getting to its proximity.
Prove it.
That's not the issue, though.
The question is whether or not a president can make up whatever "national emergency" they want as a tool to circumvent Congress.
Understand that if the guy you voted for gets away with something, the next guy will also have that available.
A phone call accomplishes the same thing, and it’s a lot less trouble and cost.
Show us how, specifically.
Or the threat of a tariff with a compliance deadline.
There are probably several “middle grounds” that would have been better than what we got. Another idea would be to start by investigating the matter and see if there was even an actual problem to be solved.
Hell no! The system is abused enough as it is. I want a rule of law that is above some sorry cretins that are seeking a popular vote for their actions. Damn that!
While I agree with this in theory, it's rather clear in practice that judges are just as mired in partisanship as the rest of Washington. Not sure how we get around that issue.
We may not. . .unless the constitution is amended to allow an independent panel to select the nation's judges and justices. As we can see, congress (specifically the GOP) is full of bleating 'sheep' inept at using the power the founders' delivered into their limp hands. Letting dumb butts elect judges and justices is not the answer, neverthess! Because the public at-large, it is clear, doe not vest enough interest in learning what is properly sound. Seriously, a great many citizens would not know a 'critical thought' if it bumped into them and apologized for their inconvenience.
Hell no! Electing judges and justices at-large is a non-starter. (So now I suppose we will have a push to make it happen.) I will fight to my last breath (along with millions of others) to see that it never goes to past.
Trump only has to June 09, 2025 when both sides have to reappear in a courtroom whose three Judges are now really annoyed about being who appointed them and why.
For once, Trump managed to have a long rant on TS and not once mention the word tariff.
I suppose and expect that we will wake up to Trump 'activity' every damn morning. . .a new can of 'worms' to dish out and fight. How the heck can one man - one man - have so much hatred and disregard contained in one skin. . . it just defies everything we know or thought we knew about a human being.
What makes you think that would help?
They are still peddling the "Trump will win due to the magnificence of his personality" horseshit.
www.mediaite.com /media/tv/trumps-treasury-secretary-says-china-talks-are-uh-a-bit-stalled/
Trump’s Treasury Secretary Says China Talks ‘Are, Uh, a Bit Stalled’
Michael Luciano 2-2 minutes 5/29/2025
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent gave a less-than-optimistic response to a question about the Trump administration’s ongoing trade negotiations with China.
President Donald Trump has unilaterally imposed tariffs on imports from most countries, and he has slapped Chinese goods with the highest rate at 30%, which, though much lower than the previous figure of 145%, is still substantial.
On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the tariffs on most imports, including those on most Chinese goods, are invalid. China hailed the decision, but on Thursday, an appeals court paused the ruling, pending arguments.
Bessent, who has played a key role in trade negotiations, joined Thursday’s Special Report on Fox News, where Bret Baier asked about the status of negotiations with Chinese officials.
“And what about China?” Baier asked. “How can you characterize those talks now?”
Bessent responded:
“So, stalled,” Baier echoed. “There was a time when the president thought that it was moving forward pretty significantly.”
“Again, I think that given the magnitude of the talks, given the complexity, that this is going to require both leaders to weigh in with each other,” the secretary stated. “They have a very good relationship. And I am confident that the Chinese will come to the table when President Trump makes his preferences known.”
Watch above via Fox News.
He should get to the task, his bucket list is leaking badly.
Yup, saw that.
Scott Bessent is above all else honest. If the American people wanted transparency they are getting it now.
If we had transparency everyone in his administration would be admitting that Trump is mentally ill.
That would be agreeing with your unfounded opinion.
I'm curious as to why you are suddenly invested in the mental health of the President.
He's been mentally ill for at least the last 15 years.
Medical proof and not just emotional bullshit please.
unfounded opinion.
Since you are keen on giving numbers, how many years do you think Biden has been "mentally ill"?
My guess would be 20 years mentally ill followed by 12 years brain dead.
If you go by the standards of others and pulled those years out of your ass, then you are right on the money.
There would still be partisan bias.
The immediate problem is Trump and his endless attempts to violate the law and the CotUS.
The problem you face is that he's not violating the law. The only mistake is using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. That is the wrong act to use. If you pay attention to the language used, they are being called reciprocal tariffs. For some reason that gets overlooked in the mad dash to a tantrum by the left.
The reciprocal tariffs are authorized under the Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934. This was singed into law on June 12, 1934, the RTAA represented a fundamental shift in U.S. trade policy. The Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate foreign commerce and establish tariff rates. Under the RTAA, Congress granted the president the right to decrease or increase U.S. tariffs.
Since it's signing into law, this has not been amended and still stands today. The Court of International Trade has no say in this matter.
Thank you for that tidbit of information.
per ChatGPT:
also per ChatGPT reflecting my actual comment:
Try looking up the act instead of AI.
Plagiarism checker found significant plagiarism in your post. Checked because the writing style is entirely different from the level of 'quality' in the posts you usually pen.
Request denied.
If you think the AI response with all of its supporting links is wrong, then you are free to try to find the errors.
So remain in la la land then.
Grammarly? Really? LMAO. Everything you need to do a simple google search is right there.
Your post @7.1 contains plagiarism.
[✘]
It contains information on the Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934. Information you couldn't be bothered to look up.
Have a nice day.
Here is the rest of the information.
Thanks for posting. I've learned something.
No more than with any other democratic process. Why should the courts be exempted from democracy?
It seems judges disagree.
We are a Republic with representative democracy. We elect representatives who then (in theory) have the means to know more about issues and certain positions and then (again, in theory) make good, informed choices. That happens with the SCotUS and myriad federal positions. The same is true in the states.
So, it seems you argue that people should make all these decisions through a direct vote. That is not how our system has ever worked, and it is impractical.
Yes, big surprise that judges do not agree on every issue.
<== That's the reality.
Who are the courts representing? A political party's interests? Canada's interests? Criminal cartel's interests south of the border? The problem is that the courts are less frequently serving the interests of the American people.
Since judges disagree, how is it possible to flatly declare that any politically motivated actions are illegal and violates the Constitution? If the desire is for judges to be influenced by public opinion then perhaps those judgeships should be an elected office. At least we would not be stuck with obsolete political views from the judiciary when public opinion shifts.
As I described in great detail, this accomplishes nothing. Done going around in circles with you.