- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Appellate judges question Trump’s authority to impose tariffs
Posted on 8/1/25 at 10:02 am
Posted on 8/1/25 at 10:02 am
WASHINGTON (AP) — Appellate court judges expressed broad skepticism Thursday over President Donald Trump’s legal rationale for his most expansive round of tariffs.
Members of the 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington appeared unconvinced by the Trump administration’s insistence that the president could impose tariffs without congressional approval, and it hammered its invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to do so.
“IEEPA doesn’t even mention the word ‘tariffs’ anywhere,” Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna said, in a sign of the panel’s incredulity to a government attorney’s arguments.
Brett Shumate, the attorney representing the Trump administration, acknowledged in the 99-minute hearing “no president has ever read IEEPA this way” but contended it was nonetheless lawful.
The 1977 law, signed by President Jimmy Carter, allows the president to seize assets and block transactions during a national emergency. It was first used during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked for a range of global unrest, from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian civil war.
“If the president says there’s a problem with our military readiness,” Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore posited, “and he puts a 20% tax on coffee, that doesn’t seem to necessarily deal with (it).”
Shumate said Congress’ passage of IEEPA gave the president “broad and flexible” power to respond to an emergency, but that “the president is not asking for unbounded authority.”
But an attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, characterized Trump’s maneuver as a “breathtaking” power grab that amounted to saying “the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency.”
LINK
Members of the 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington appeared unconvinced by the Trump administration’s insistence that the president could impose tariffs without congressional approval, and it hammered its invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to do so.
“IEEPA doesn’t even mention the word ‘tariffs’ anywhere,” Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna said, in a sign of the panel’s incredulity to a government attorney’s arguments.
Brett Shumate, the attorney representing the Trump administration, acknowledged in the 99-minute hearing “no president has ever read IEEPA this way” but contended it was nonetheless lawful.
The 1977 law, signed by President Jimmy Carter, allows the president to seize assets and block transactions during a national emergency. It was first used during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked for a range of global unrest, from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian civil war.
“If the president says there’s a problem with our military readiness,” Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore posited, “and he puts a 20% tax on coffee, that doesn’t seem to necessarily deal with (it).”
Shumate said Congress’ passage of IEEPA gave the president “broad and flexible” power to respond to an emergency, but that “the president is not asking for unbounded authority.”
But an attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, characterized Trump’s maneuver as a “breathtaking” power grab that amounted to saying “the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency.”
LINK
13
Posted on 8/1/25 at 10:03 am to Jbird
HE CANT KEEP FIXING THE ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!!!! 
Posted on 8/1/25 at 10:08 am to Jbird
If you don't like the opinions from these DC Swamp judges, please remember that Massie shares the same opinion.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 10:23 am to Jbird
Allowing these lopsided trade deals ,that hurt America, to stay in place is a form of bribe to that country to work with the Marxists in control. It's also another way to collapse the financial system. They just leave the "back door" open and say "hey, doors not locked, help your self and we'll expect cooperation when the time comes". Thousands of people working with the Marxists simply looting the American treasury before it collapses. These people deserve no mercy.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 10:26 am to Jbird
Never in my life have I seen so many people work so hard to ensure that this country continue to get fricked at every possible angle...
Posted on 8/1/25 at 11:27 am to Jbird
quote:
Members of the 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington
Remember, this is the exact court that Odumbf*ck and Dingy Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option on so that they could pack it with far, far, far f*cking left liberal whackjobs.
This post was edited on 8/1/25 at 11:29 am
Posted on 8/1/25 at 11:43 am to Jbird
quote:
“IEEPA doesn’t even mention the word ‘tariffs’ anywhere,” Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna said, in a sign of the panel’s incredulity to a government attorney’s arguments.
This is the part that pisses me off. It literally says "restrictions on imports" in the Act, but because it doesnt specifically say the word "tariff", its up for debate.
A tariff IS a restriction on imports. Good god.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 11:44 am to Jbird
Do the courts have any military or means of force to enforce their retarded takes? No? Oh well, back of the bread line commie.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 11:50 am to td01241
quote:
Do the courts have any military or means of force to enforce their retarded takes?
Jesus Christ.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 11:59 am to Jbird
Unlike many of the anti-Trump administration suits, I expect this one to have legs. Levying taxes, such as tariffs, is within Congress's Article I authority, not the Executive's. The statute on which Trump relies does confer flexible "emergency" powers to the President, but does it confer the ability to act unilaterally in levying tariffs on every country in the world in whatever manner the Executive sees fit? I think not.
What is so interesting about this issue is that textualist and originalist judges--you know, judges who don't just make up whatever "law" favors their preferred party or policy, many of whom were appointed by Trump himself--are going to have a tough time condoning such a large power grab by the Executive in the absence or more explicit Congressional delegation.
What is so interesting about this issue is that textualist and originalist judges--you know, judges who don't just make up whatever "law" favors their preferred party or policy, many of whom were appointed by Trump himself--are going to have a tough time condoning such a large power grab by the Executive in the absence or more explicit Congressional delegation.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 12:06 pm to Jbird
Didn't read your whole post. But if these lower courts want to have this argument. Then find in the constitution where it says someone else has the authority. Where were these Judges when they were needed in Bieden time. I know the answers to the Bieden time. No need to tell me.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 12:23 pm to VABuckeye
Jesus Christ is the enforcement?
Posted on 8/1/25 at 12:28 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
power grab by the Executive in the absence or more explicit Congressional delegation.
It would seem an easy fix by Congress
And yet crickets
My question would be what authority of these Plaintiff have in arguing congressional authority
This post was edited on 8/1/25 at 12:29 pm
Posted on 8/1/25 at 12:31 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
Levying taxes, such as tariffs
Tariffs are not taxes and they’re not within the purview of the congressional taxing power. Just because something could have the effect of raising prices does not make it a tax. Otherwise, every minor, environmental Action taken by a Democrat president would have to get congressional approval. It’s more akin to conducting foreign policy which is within the purview of the executive branch.
Many president since Kennedy have imposed tariffs on goods without congressional approval, including the Democrats black Jesus himself, Odumbf*ck.
Odumbf*ck imposed 35% tariffs on tires from China, and 30% tariffs on solar panels from China in order to influence their behavior with respect to intellectual property, theft, and human rights violations. Nobody bitched about that. It’s one of the few things I agreed with when it came to Obama.
Presidents need this power to negotiate with countries around the world. Right now we’re running a $17 trillion trade deficit. That’s not sustainable. We are essentially giving away trillions of dollars every year as other countries just f*ck us.
No president should be forced to go to Congress on every single f*cking trade deal with all 150+ countries we trade with to make sure that United States isn’t getting f*cked time and time again. This would allow countries to frick us up the arse with absolutely zero repercussions because they know it might take years for Congress to fricking act on it given the complete frick show we have in Congress.
Just think of the consequences of that. American hating scumbags like Hakeem Jeffries and Schmucky Schumer could allow America to keep getting fricked up the arse by every fricking despot dictatorship who wants to steal our intellectual property by refusing to allow the president to conduct foreign policy unless he agrees to give Planned Parenthood in NPR trillions of dollars every year. Completely untenable and unsustainable.
This post was edited on 8/1/25 at 3:37 pm
Posted on 8/1/25 at 12:32 pm to Jbird
quote:
the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency.”
Obama set this precedent so deal with it.
But Trump admins argument is pretty weak and I think the courts will toss his ability impose blanket tariffs. I think they’ll allow his targeted tariffs on things like steel. But with such a ruling, all his trade deals go out the window unless Trump gets Congress to act
Posted on 8/1/25 at 12:33 pm to Jbird
And I question these judges' authority to question the authority of executive branch economic decisions. 
Posted on 8/1/25 at 12:35 pm to deltaland
The tariffs are what Trump says they are. The country has moved on, and you should too.
This post was edited on 8/1/25 at 12:36 pm
Posted on 8/1/25 at 12:44 pm to dafif
Please.....Congress wanted to give up that power and they don't want it back. Arguing it would interfere with precious fundraising time and searching for TV cameras . Plus, if they don't have to handle a tax, it can't be hung around their neck.
Presidents are only in DC for 8 years. Reps and Senators have careers to think about.
Presidents are only in DC for 8 years. Reps and Senators have careers to think about.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 12:45 pm to deltaland
quote:
I think they’ll allow his targeted tariffs on things like steel.
So, you’re saying that as long as the Trump administration went down each and every conceivable product and placed a separate tariff on each "targetted" product with all 150+ countries we trade with that that would pass constitutional scrutiny? After all, you can no longer argue that it's a “blanket tariff."
That is just f*cking retarded and completely f*cking ridiculous.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 1:05 pm to Jbird
The Courts are going to undo all of the trade deals and say that the deals need Congressional approval because tariffs are taxes and taxes have to be passed by Congress. We all know that approval will never happen.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News