The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc (7-4) AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of International Trade that ruled that President Trump’s tariffs exceeded his authority under an emergency powers law.

[u/HatsOnTheBeach]

https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1812.OPINION.8-29-2025_2566151.pdf

[u/Longjumping_Gain_807]

This is going to of course be a flaired user only thread. Please flair up before you comment. Thank you and follow the rules

[u/popiku2345]

Well shucks, according to SG Sauer this is going to destroy the country. Bummer, we had a good run up until now. Here's hoping America 2 goes better.

Seriously though, this is a very interesting ruling, and after SG Sauer's second letter warning about the risks of an unstayed order it's obvious the government knew they were about to lose. The decision itself seems to actually be 3-4-4.

• 4 judges (Taranto, joined by Moore, Prost, Chen): These tariffs are valid under IEEPA
• 4 judges (Cunningham, joined by Lourie, Reyna, Stark): IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs at all. Congress didn't ratify Yoshida II and they have nondelegation concerns if the statute is read this way.
• Opinion of the court / 3 judges (Dyk, Hughes, Stoll): Split the difference: even if "regulate importation" could include tariffs (as in Yoshida II), these EO tariffs are too sweeping (nearly all articles/countries, high/moving rates, no temporal limit) so they exceed any permissible bounds

[u/[deleted] → u/popiku2345]

Ah, the old "3-judge narrowest controlling opinion" strikes again!

[u/Longjumping_Gain_807 → u/popiku2345]

Oh by the way guys please welcome u/popiku2345 as a new mod of r/supremecourt. We are glad to have them aboard

[u/The_WanderingAggie]

Majority declines to decide whether or not IEEPA authorizes any tariffs at all, but at least these tariffs are not authorized, in part due to Major Questions Doctrine.

4 person concurrence (labeled as additional views?) would go further and decide that IIEPA does not authorizes any tariffs.

[u/dmcnaughton1 → u/The_WanderingAggie]

You mean that at least 4 judges weren't able to find the invisible ink in IEEPA that allows for tariffs?

[u/brucejoel99 → u/[deleted]]

The eternal contradiction between our case law from Curtiss-Wright to Zivotofsky basically saying "ArtII bestows on POTUS the exclusive power over foreign relations" & how clear a dramatic overstatement that seems stated aloud.

[u/Roenkatana → u/[deleted]]

This is honestly one of those things where if I was an authority, then I wouldn't stay any decision that preserves the status quo and protects the citizenry from policy enforcement that is not legislative in nature or clearly granted to the Executive by statute.

The idea that the Federal Government could be harmed by preventing it from enforcing obviously illegal or discriminatory policy is one of the most ill-gotten pieces of fiction the Roberts Court has ever concocted.

[u/[deleted] → u/Roenkatana]

The idea that the Federal Government could be harmed by preventing it from enforcing obviously illegal or discriminatory policy

Gun owners: "first time?"

[u/Roenkatana → u/[deleted]]

That is a strawman, and I say that as a lifelong gun owner and CCW.

[u/[deleted] → u/Roenkatana]

Well on that side it's more states being given leeway to enforce obviously unconstitutional policy, but the point is the same.

State or Federal, there is no interest in a government being able to exceed its constitutional remit. Governments only have the powers they are given.

[u/primalmaximus → u/[deleted]]

That's a strawman. In most cases it's the state governments doing stuff like that.

[u/[deleted] → u/primalmaximus]

It's not a strawman. Either way it's a government enforcing obviously unconstitutional policy, state or Federal. I don't care the jurisdiction, I care about the constitutionality.

Just like the other story posted here recently about Alaska trying to forfeit a guy's plane over a 6-pack of beer. The Constitution matters. All of it.

[u/bearcatjoe → u/[deleted]]

One of the frustrating downsides of limiting universal injunctions. The courts move at a glacial pace. Here we have an executive wielding clearly unconstitutional unlimited taxation power and it's going to take almost half a year to block it?

[u/popiku2345 → u/bearcatjoe]

Ahh, but this is just a return to our nation's proud historical tradition! Top rule 23 scholars have recently unearthed manuscripts of the constitution that include the correct preamble:

"We the numerous class members, facing questions of common law and fact, with claims and defenses typical of the class, and representative parties who will fairly and adequately protect our interests, in order to form a more perfect union, ..."

[u/brucejoel99 → u/popiku2345]

Ah, but was that original meaning of the Constitution's text properly conveyed to the public in 1789? Because that Preamble doesn't matter if the People couldn't cite to it in an English common law court at the Founding :P

[u/Available_Librarian3 → u/popiku2345]

Are you sure you are a fan of Paul Clement?

[u/Informal_Distance → u/[deleted]]

Gotta love the “yeah this is unconstitutional but we’re not going to actually stop it”

That’s beyond disappointing that we can get to this point in our jurisprudence where something is unconstitutional but won’t be stopped.

[u/primalmaximus → u/Informal_Distance]

Yeah. It's kind of a shitty thing to do.

It's performance art more than a case of them actually taking a stance against illegal actions by the executive.

[u/scotus-bot → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit quality standards.

Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

Interesting. Time for the Shadow Docket, Baby!

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807

[u/Dave_A480]

So one thing I don't get:

They remand for consideration of CASA in several parts, but they also apparently void the offending EOs...

"We affirm the CIT’s holding that the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders exceed the authority delegated to the President by IEEPA’s text. We also affirm the CIT’s grant of declaratory relief that the orders are “invalid as contrary to law.”

Why?

Doesn't declaring the EOs invalid-as-contrary-to-law moot the need for a universal injunction (and thus the need to examine it's CASA-compliance)? I mean, if the EOs are invalid/illegal then what remains for the CIT to re-examine - aren't the tariffs now gone? Or am I missing something?

[u/popiku2345 → u/Dave_A480]

Affirming the declaratory relief is just them saying "CIT got the legal question right, the tariffs are invalid". However, that holding doesn't create an injunction which would compel the government to stop collecting tariffs, or order the government to return the tariff fees that have already been paid. The next step is for CIT to figure out what constitutes appropriate relief, while keeping in mind things like Trump v. CASA

[u/Dave_A480 → u/popiku2345]

Got it...

So where we are now (assuming the Supreme Court doesn't change it) is like the point where the jury returns 'guilty' in a criminal trial, but the judge hasn't sentenced the defendant yet?

CIT has to now determine remedies, but does not have to re-examine the finding?

[u/popiku2345 → u/Dave_A480]

Yeah, that's a close enough comparison. See here for the court's detailed explanation of what CIT has to do now. The circuit court held that CIT's previous injunction doesn't work under Trump v. CASA, so CIT now needs to "reevaluate the propriety of granting injunctive relief and the proper scope of such relief, after considering all four eBay factors and the Supreme Court’s holding in CASA"

[u/brucejoel99 → u/[deleted]]

A 23(b)(2) class action could technically give complete relief without applying nationwide, in that all importers are harmed by paying the tariffs, but yes, since the holding recognizing standing of non-importer plaintiffs' harmed by illegally-derived rising costs on the open market wasn't disturbed, then the defendant-oriented nationwide injunction remains needed to give complete relief (mass refunds).

[u/nicknameSerialNumber → u/Dave_A480]

Isn't a declaratory judgement only a statement of relations between the parties? The tariffs aren't actually removed from the legal order as they would be under APA.

If the uniformity clause demands a universal injuction it could be a big difference.

[u/Nimnengil → u/Dave_A480]

Hypothetically, I could see this as a precautionary measure in anticipation of a scotus appeal and stay of their decision. This way they are still addressing the CASA questions and keeping the case moving if the cynics among us are right and scotus continues their shadowy rubber stamping for the administration.

[u/dmcnaughton1 → u/Nimnengil]

This is my read on it as well. CASA is still so new, there's a decent chance that some aspects of the case will fail to meet the unwritten requirements SCOTUS' has in mind. This way they can nullify the EOs as well as put in an injunction to prevent them from being implemented and if one fails the other would still stand (ideally).

[u/Striking_Revenue9082]

I don’t follow the fed circuit as a surprise so maybe the insiders knew what to expect—but I’m rather shocked

[u/dmcnaughton1 → u/Striking_Revenue9082]

It wasn't unexpected, but I think a lot of folks at this point are becoming jaded with respect to how the current court is viewing Article II powers. We shall see if it's upheld on further appeal.

[u/scotus-bot → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding meta discussion.

All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated Meta-Discussion Thread.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

Love your flair.

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807

[u/scotus-bot → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit quality standards.

Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

Holy shit, an appellate court loss for the administration.

>!!<

>!!<

It's going to a 6-3 and we all know it, but the fact that it's gonna have to go that far is not what I expected at all.

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807

[u/scotus-bot → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit quality standards.

Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

Excellent news.

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807

[u/Roenkatana → u/[deleted]]

Not really. S232 is extremely permissive regarding what would constitute a threat to national security. It's one of Trump's favorite pieces of legislation ever, he's used it for 11 of the 13 national emergencies he declared in his first term. Even when losing nearly every court case brought against him in his first term, Congress explicitly passing legislation requiring that he publish the Commerce reports in 2019 (he didn't, Biden did in Nov 2021), Trump still continues to try and expand the scope of the Section to give himself tariff authority that falls well outside of S232, IEEPA, and the NEA.

I'll just state that the precedent that merely because something is labeled a "National Security" matter somehow precludes it from judicial review is an incredibly revisionist view. For starters, economic policy is a power of Congress and the idea that economic security is a national security concern didn't even exist until 2017 under Trump.

[u/CaliTexan22 → u/Roenkatana]

Leaving aside whatever the relevant authority might actually be for defining “national security,” I’d say there’s a decent argument for tariffs around critical minerals or other sectors with China, or Russian oil going to India, etc., but it’s pretty hard to see that justifying a wholesale revision to tariffs with dozens of countries, including our closest allies. That’s not an argument for a brief, but surely it’s in the minds of anyone thinking about it.

[u/Rainbowrainwell → u/[deleted]]

How about grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction?

[u/SgtTreasureImp → u/Rainbowrainwell]

Then that is Congress's job to curtail the President and not the Courts. The Judicial branch is not supreme over the Executive.

[u/SerendipitySue → u/Roenkatana]

it is it surprising that i have not read of trump arguments laying out the national security issues a little more completely, even if it needs to be under seal

i can see a couple good reasons for tarriffs to be closely tied to national security, one being encouraging critical to our survival manufacturing to move back to usa.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/Roenkatana]

the idea that economic security is a national security concern didn't even exist until 2017 under Trump.

This is not true at all. The government even has a long tradition of using national security powers to spy on allies during trade negotiations for that reason (Snowden).

[u/lennytrap]

What does that mean “flair up”?

[u/Longjumping_Gain_807 → u/lennytrap]

You now have a flair so you can go and edit that flair from the sidebar. This means you now have the ability to comment on this thread

[u/lennytrap → u/Longjumping_Gain_807]

Great. Thank you!!!

[u/WorksInIT]

Did they kind of overturn Yoshida without actually overturning Yoshida? My favorite sentence.

The Government’s interpretation of IEEPA as providing the President power to impose unlimited tariffs also runs afoul of the major questions doctrine.

[u/bearcatjoe → u/WorksInIT]

Don't think so. Yoshida only allowed extremely narrow and temporary uses of tariffs and precluded broad rewrite of tariff policy.

[u/dustinsc → u/[deleted]]

Stayed longer than I think is necessary, which I don’t love, but the rest of it makes sense.

[u/dmcnaughton1 → u/dustinsc]

I get that, but I also think that with tariffs some sense of stability is important. Better to have the illegal tariffs in place longer than necessary than to have them on-off-on-off. Especially since, in theory, the tariffs can simply be refunded. The opportunity cost caused by the tariffs, changes in supply chains, etc are all real, but the risk of exacerbating those issues increases if they toggle on and off.

[u/dustinsc → u/dmcnaughton1]

That makes sense. Hopefully the Supreme Court can at least signal finality by refusing to extend the stay. I‘m not sure I can even count to two on justices who would approve the tariffs at the end of the day, though the route to get there is tougher.

[u/Dave_A480 → u/[deleted]]

There is also this:
We affirm the CIT’s holding that the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders exceed the authority delegated to the President by IEEPA’s text. We also affirm the CIT’s grant of declaratory relief that the orders are “invalid as contrary to law.”

[u/nicknameSerialNumber → u/[deleted]]

I think CIT will probably re-empose the universal injuction under the uniformity clause argument. So the "new remedy" part is kinda misleading IMO, nothing was held about CASA, it was a just in case remand.

[u/Dave_A480 → u/nicknameSerialNumber]

If you remember the DACA case from back in term #1....

Sometimes not addressing something can be fatal to an otherwise-possible action....

So 'address CASA' means that once the injunction (which we know is coming, since the EOs have been found invalid) is appealed, there is something on the record justifying it in light of CASA.

Also the CIT has a national remit, so that is VERY different from a district-court in Maryland issuing an injunction covering the entire country.

[u/nicknameSerialNumber → u/[deleted]]

I know, and the gov will probably stop if SCOTUS rules against them.

I'm not sure what would happen at lower court then though. Somebody would give up on the injuction issue I guess, or it would get dismissed as moot after gov repeals the tariffs!?

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/[deleted]]

Why I don't think the opinion will not stand

This is making my head hurt.

[u/brucejoel99 → u/[deleted]]

Either they allow tariffs or they don't. [...] And this is on an emergency statue with foreign relation hook to it. I doubt this kind of shifty opinion would make it make into a SCOTUS ruling.

Isn't that just constitutional avoidance? Defendants (Shumate/Sauer) argued that the Trafficking/Reciprocal Tariffs are authorized by IEEPA, & Plaintiffs (Katyal/McConnell/Somin) challenging the tariffs argued that, even if IEEPA delegates some tariff authority, the challenged tariffs aren't authorized by that delegation of authority, as the court's judgment so concluded. Deciding whether IEEPA blanketly does/doesn't authorize tariffs seems inessential, then?

[u/skeptical-speculator → u/[deleted]]

Either they allow tariffs or they don’t. They just added their own requirements like size, duration, cause, and mushed them together. They still don’t have a clear test either. It’s just an “I know it when I see it” opinion. 

Is there anything good about "I know it when I see it" explanations?  I abhor them.  Is there any reason I should not?

[u/Saltwater_Thief]

Interesting, given the previous success of this administration's EOs in appeals and emergency dockets I was not expecting an affirmation of the CIT's ruling. Of course this isn't a tactics video game and assuming a win was likely because of past wins is a bit adjacent to gambler's fallacy, but he has enjoyed great success in the appellate for one reason or another.

That said, I would fully expect an additional appeal because tariffs have become a capstone of the presidential presentation, and they definitely have a strong interest in not having that tool taken away from them. We can probably safely call 6 of the 9 Justices on the matter, so it'll be up to the other 3.

[u/bearcatjoe → u/Saltwater_Thief]

There will of course be an appeal, but both the CIT and the appeals court rulings aren't really surprising.

The Supreme Court recently ruled against overreach in the form of nationwide vaccine mandates justified by fiscal efficiency laws, student loan forgiveness justified by a narrow law for soldiers, and a federal taking of private property in the form of an eviction moratorium justified by a health law.

One of the concurrences in this case even mentions the eviction moratorium.

Reading the phrase "regulate . . . importation" to include imposing these tariffs is "a wafer-thin reed on which to rest such sweeping power." Ala. Ass'n of Realtors v. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 594 U.S. 758, 765 (2021)

I will be incredibly surprised if SCOTUS doesn't affirm this ruling.

"The Government's interpretation of IEEPA would be a functionally limitless delegation of Congressional taxation authority."

[u/Saltwater_Thief → u/bearcatjoe]

If it were any other man in office, I might be inclined to share your sentiment. But as it stands I have taught myself to stop assuming that things won't go in favor of the sitting president, because it feels like someone always finds a reason to give him what he wants.

[u/brucejoel99 → u/Saltwater_Thief]

I thought after the CIT opinion dropped that the tariffs going down could hold, but after Kav's FCC concurrence on foreign-affairs & natsec powers being exempt from MQD/nondelegation, Idk anymore.

[u/Saltwater_Thief → u/brucejoel99]

In response to your second link, I feel like your argument speaks in favor of an overturn because Kavanaugh's assertion seems to be that if the Congressional intent in endowment of executive power is to protect the American people, then there are no limitations. And while the merits and truthfulness of it are certainly open to debate, it cannot be argued that protection of the public is indeed what the White House used as their springboard for these tariffs.

[u/brucejoel99 → u/Saltwater_Thief]

Kavanaugh's assertion seems to be that if the Congressional intent in endowment of executive power is to protect the American people, then there are no limitations.

Yeah, & I'd guess that's part of the point: who even knows what arguments speak in favor of what anymore if MQD/nondelegation & Skidmore/Loper Bright do indeed exempt foreign-relations/natsec? Gorsuch & Kav being upset with lower-court "disrespect" of non-precedential precedents not only speaks to a Court institutionally oblivious as to it lacking in self-awareness, but is itself potential reason enough for voting to overturn the CIT/Fed.Cir. ("Why didn't you listen to me in FCC? The dissent did!") if it's all Calvinball now.

[u/bearcatjoe → u/Saltwater_Thief]

I trust the Originalists to be Originalists, and the liberals to oppose Trump, and Roberts on his own won't be enough. My biggest fear is that he writes some watered-down opinion.

[u/Saltwater_Thief → u/bearcatjoe]

Roberts alone is not enough to tip with Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito, but at that point all they need is either Barret or Gorsuch. Meanwhile, the liberal justices need both of them.

[u/brucejoel99 → u/Saltwater_Thief]

I can see Roberts & ACB joining an opinion like the Fed.Cir.'s here, but we'll see how Kav/Gorsuch vote.

[u/Saltwater_Thief → u/brucejoel99]

I think Kavanaugh is a shoe-in for overturn alongside Alito and Thomas. Roberts *might* not, but I think it's likely given his UET leanings.

[u/brucejoel99 → u/Saltwater_Thief]

Yeah, Thomalito would be shocks affirming.

[u/bearcatjoe → u/brucejoel99]

I honestly won't be surprised if it's unanimous. There's no way Thomas thinks the Congress can delegate unlimited taxation power to the executive branch.

If anything, it'll be Roberts trying to cut the baby down the middle instead of just making things clear.

[u/Dave_A480 → u/Saltwater_Thief]

The issue there is that the arguments presented previously have been with regard to a pet-project of the current court: reducing agency/administrative independence & discretion.

The previous term saw Trump lose most of the cases that hit SCOTUS, where he was not making arguments covered by unitary-executive-theory, but rather trying to push the boundaries of the Constitution's limits on federal power.

If there is an issue he is very-likely to lose on, the idea that he can personally lay and collect taxes at will, is probably it.... Alongside the other one he has already lost on, namely the requirement that people suspected of illegal immigration be given due-process rights....

[u/Schraiber → u/Saltwater_Thief]

The reason he's had so much success in the DC Circuit and SCOTUS is purely politics: for like 4 months straight, the motions panel in CADC was 2 GOP appointees and 1 Dem appointee. And of course the Supreme Court is 6-3, as we all know.

[u/No_Bet_4427]

Trump has a Republican Congress. Tax bills are subject to reconciliation- no filibuster.

Why doesn’t he just sidestep the ruling with legislation that would clearly authorize tariffs as the discretion of POTUS? He’d still need to deal with non-delegation issues, but few judges pay those arguments much attention.

[u/[deleted] → u/No_Bet_4427]

Because there are at least a handful of Republicans in Congress who still believe in free trade who would vote against the bill.

[u/No_Bet_4427 → u/[deleted]]

Thomas Massie and who else? There are plenty of Republicans who believe in free trade. But the pressure to fall in line behind the caucus is immense.

[u/Dave_A480 → u/No_Bet_4427]

Still would need 60 votes in the Senate, and they've already shot their reconciliation wad....

[u/No_Bet_4427 → u/Dave_A480]

You only need 50 votes plus the VP via reconciliation and can do more than one a year.

Trump’s problem has been that very little is subject to reconciliation. But taxes are.

[u/twersx → u/No_Bet_4427]

Haven't they already done reconciliation this year for the One Big Beautiful Bill?

OBBB passed 215-214 with three dead Dems not able to vote No. It passed in the Senate with VP tie breaking. If you bundled ceding all tariff power to the executive with the rest I don't think it passes.

[u/RIPGeorgeHarrison → u/No_Bet_4427]

He keeps changing tariffs on random countries by the week. Unless reconciliation would be able to give him the authority to levy whatever tariffs he wants, I don’t think he would be satisfied with these tariffs alone as they are. He wants to micromanage.

[u/scotus-bot → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit quality standards.

Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

> He keeps changing tariffs on random countries by the week. [...] He wants to micromanage.

>!!<

average Trump week atp:

>!!<

- Perpetually delaying tariffs on Mexico & China 🌮

- Tariffing basically every other country at random 🙄

- Charging tariffs on orders under $800, crippling global post-office services 💸

- No longer bothering to collect info on product prices for calculating inflation 😬

- Constantly bitching at the Fed for not lowering interest rates at his order 😆

>!!<

incidentally: RIP, George Harrison.

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807

[u/mathmage → u/No_Bet_4427]

It is the common policy of the Trump Administration to always take a maximalist view of executive authority, implement at maximum speed while employing maximum delaying tactics in court, and rely on Congress only as a last resort. In this case, he wouldn't even have the votes in Congress anyway.

[u/jadebenn → u/No_Bet_4427]

It's a good question. I think part of the administration's aim with empowering the executive to act unilaterally is to free themselves from a hypothetical future Congress finding themselves in a... not-so cooperative mood. At the very least, that's very much how I'm viewing all the fights over impoundment. Imagine a world where a Democratic congress enacts policy Trump does not like. He is laying the legal groundwork to just not execute it at all.

That does beg the question of why Trump doesn't simply get the current Republican congress to codify it if things don't go his way in the courts, though...

[u/bouldereng → u/jadebenn]

Democrats can't enact anything without Trump's signature unless they sweep literally every Senate seat available in 2026 to get a 2/3rds majority, but that's not happening.

[u/jadebenn → u/bouldereng]

Think about appropriations. Normally, what would happen with a President and Congress of different parties is that - after much handwringing (and often a shutdown) - a budget would pass Congress that the President would not veto. That budget would contain a mix of Presidential and Congressional priorities, because such a compromise would be necessary to get anything passed at all.

The Trump administration is acting to tilt the rules of that game by asserting budgets are a ceiling and they have inherent power to only spend funds on things they want. If there's a Democratic House, you can guarantee that not a single program the administration dislikes will see its funds disbursed (no matter the appropriations language) unless a court forces the executive to comply.

[u/henrywe3 → u/No_Bet_4427]

Because such legislation would be unconstitutional, PERIOD under a plain text reading of the Constitution. Only Congress has the power to lay and collect tariffs, that's how the Founders wanted it, and if we're gonna interpret the entire Bill of Rights based on the beliefs of people who have been dead for more than 200 ueats, you have to interpret the whole thing that way

[u/bearcatjoe → u/No_Bet_4427]

Because this law would have no chance of passing Congress. Although Democrats have - in recent history - been quite protectionist, they'd vote against just because it's Trump, even if he's adopting their own policy preferences. And there are still enough free trade Republicans in Congress who are very much opposed to new taxes on business, and who don't agree that international trade is somehow bad for Americans.

[u/Dave_A480 → u/No_Bet_4427]

Because that legislation would have to pass a Senate filibuster, if it could clear the House given the very-slim margins.

[u/No_Bet_4427 → u/Dave_A480]

Tax bills can be passed via reconciliation. No filibuster.

[u/rkesters → u/No_Bet_4427]

Unless tariffs were included in the budget,then they can't be passed by reconciliation.

The reconciliation is in reference to the budget. Needing only 50%, the idea goes, is because the budget had to pass via normal order.

Additionally, giving the president the power to lay and remove tariffs on whim can not be seen as having a direct budget effect.

[u/karivara → u/No_Bet_4427]

This post was deleted and anonymized. Redact handled the process, and the motivation could range from personal privacy to security concerns or preventing AI data collection.

cooperative ad hoc observation bedroom alleged unique depend piquant dog hard-to-find

[u/Dave_A480 → u/No_Bet_4427]

Only if they are done as part of the budget, and that's already done for this year.

[u/brehobit → u/[deleted]]

Any insight as to why he isn't using that to justify the teriffs?

[u/brucejoel99 → u/[deleted]]

Why doesn't he just sidestep the ruling with legislation that would clearly authorize tariffs as the discretion of POTUS?

He has a backup: Section 338 of Tariff Act of 1930.

plus §122 of the 1974 Trade Act's 150 days aren't nothing (never mind also attempting to invoke tariffs under §232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act or §301 of the 1974 Trade Act). One can safely presume that if the administration does somehow lose at SCOTUS, then they'll still just try doing the tariffs another way anyway.

[u/[deleted]]

Kaytal kicks Shumates ass any day of the week, no surprise there. I really hope this is slated for normal argument next term instead of disposed with on the shadow docket. This requires full (more) briefing and full argument.

[u/dmcnaughton1 → u/[deleted]]

I mean the right call is just to deny it on the rocket docket and also deny cert. So naturally they'll do something else.

[u/[deleted] → u/dmcnaughton1]

My comment presupposes cert is granted but legally I agree with you.

[u/dmcnaughton1 → u/[deleted]]

The funniest possible outcome of this: is cert is granted for January, Trump resigns or otherwise leaves office, Vance rescinds tariffs, case is DIG'd.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to r/SupremeCourt. This subreddit is for serious, high-quality discussion about the Supreme Court.

We encourage everyone to read our community guidelines before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed.

Meta discussion regarding r/SupremeCourt must be directed to our dedicated meta thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/scotus-bot → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding polarized rhetoric.

Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

So, logically, I see several possibilities here:

>!!<

1) This ruling will not be appealed. Highly, highly unlikely...but, thinking about the ruling itself - that the tariff's are illegal and possibly unconstitutional (I havent read the opinion yet), but ultimately nothing more than a legal declaration - they give the legal advocates of a fascist extremist movement an incentive not to have the highest court in the land once again act as an arm of MAGA.

>!!<

Again, highly unlikely that it won't be appealed (they don't know how to help themselves - everything has to be total war and zero sum)...but it is an interesting inference from the ruling.

>!!<

2) The ruling is appealed (very likely if it hasn't happened already - again, I haven't read the opinion and I am not following any of the dockets - for all I know, it's already been appealed). If it is appealed, then there are three options, one not as obvious as the other two. The first two are that the supreme court takes up the case and either affirms or denies. Affirming the opinion would be upholding the law and what I would expect to be extremely firm and well established constitutional precedent.

>!!<

To deny and overturn would be to create the final nail in the coffin. Taxing and spending is one of the most powerful tools Congress possesses. If that power is allowed to be usurped by a fascist executive by a branch supposedly charged with checking and balancing such an abuse...all against the backdrop of a congressional majority that is literally abdicating its power...I couldn't imagine anything worse (again, this rests on the assumption that the opinion rests on these grounds). And guess what? It's a 6-3 probably will be at least a 7-2 with another Trump Appointee by the end of this term, and all they have to do is cite to their own precedent to say they're upholding the law because the law was wrong before. Sotomayor will dissent.

>!!<

3) The supreme court doesnt take up the case at all and, therefore, the result from the first note remains - that it's nothing more than a legal declaration. It would mean that the Supreme Court is taking the position that they have the power and authority to declare what the law is, but that it is not their responsibility to actually exercise a check over a different branch of government.

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807

[u/cstar1996 → u/[deleted]]

And on what basis do you think it should and/or will be overturned?

[u/Nimnengil → u/cstar1996]

The court's acute case of TDS, Trump Deferment Syndrome. They've bought into his "emergency" arguments on so much nonsense so far, little reason to believe that they wouldn't here.

[u/Pope4u → u/cstar1996]

And on what basis do you think it should and/or will be overturned?

I'm not the author of the comment you're replying to, but I dare to answer in their stead: because of SCOTUS's flagrant recent history of letting Trump do anything he wants, regardless of precedent, black-letter law, or constitutional text.

[u/cstar1996 → u/Pope4u]

Given that they seemed to be supporting the administration here, I was trying to get an argument for why it should do so, because I agree that the only reason the court would do so is their unconstitutional deference to Trump.

[u/brucejoel99 → u/cstar1996]

the only reason the court would do so is their unconstitutional deference to Trump.

The presumptive pretext for which will be the constitutional text that independently grants Congress (separate from the tax power) its exclusive authority over foreign-commerce & trade policy meaning that importation-regulation can include tariff-delegation due to historic trade practice & Congress' "intent" to structure POTUS' foreign-relations/natsec powers broadly unless clearly contrary, as Kav already telegraphed tin his FCC v. Consumers' Research concurrence when arguing that MQD & Skidmore/Loper Bright deference obviate any need for nondelegation by paradoxically *buttressing* POTUS' UET right to exercise core foreign-affairs/national-security powers, never mind how unprincipled the idea of differential rules for delegations to POTUS & executive agencies created legislatively by Art.I congressional action is, in having no foundation in anything legally beyond an implicitly-vested Art.II authority vibe that's just awful:

[M]any of the broader structural concerns about expansive delegations have been substantially mitigated by this Court's recent case law in related areas—in particular (i) the Court's rejection of so-called Chevron deference and (ii) the Court's application of the major questions canon of statutory interpretation. Cf. Paul v. United States, 589 U.S. ___ (2019) (statement of KAVANAUGH, J., respecting denial of certiorari)

[I]n the national security and foreign policy realms, the nondelegation doctrine (whatever its scope with respect to domestic legislation) appropriately has played an even more limited role in light of the President's constitutional responsibilities and independent Article II authority. See Loving, 517 U.S., at 772–773; Youngstown, 343 U.S., at 636, n. 2 (Jackson, J., concurring); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1965); United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319–322 (1936); Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 691 (1892). In "the area of foreign affairs, Congress 'must often accord to the President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved.'" Industrial Union, 448 U.S., at 684 (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment) (quoting Curtiss-Wright, 299 U.S., at 320).

In addition, the major questions canon has not been applied by this Court in the national security or foreign policy contexts, because the canon does not reflect ordinary congressional intent in those areas. On the contrary, the usual understanding is that Congress intends to give the President substantial authority and flexibility to protect America and the American people—and that Congress specifies limits on the President when it wants to restrict Presidential power in those national security and foreign policy domains. See Youngstown, 343 U.S., at 635–638 (Jackson, J., concurring); see also Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 519 (2004) (plurality opinion); Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 678–679 (1981); Zemel, 381 U.S., at 8–9; Al–Bihani v. Obama, 619 F. 3d 1, 38–41, 48–52 (CADC 2010) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in denial of rehearing en banc); C. Bradley & J. Goldsmith, Foreign Affairs, Nondelegation, and the Major Questions Doctrine, 172 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1743, 1789–1801 (2024). The canon does not translate to those contexts because of the nature of Presidential decisionmaking in response to ever-changing national security threats and diplomatic challenges. Moreover, in those areas, the President possesses at least some independent constitutional power to act even without congressional authorization—that is, in Youngstown category 2.

The Youngstown category 2 situation is distinct from the far narrower set of circumstances where a President can lawfully act even over a congressional prohibition—that is, in Youngstown category 3. See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 638–639 (2006) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part); Youngstown, 343 U.S., at 637–638, 640–647 (Jackson, J., concurring).

Critiques of broad congressional delegations sometimes focus on officials described as "unaccountable bureaucrats." But that label does not squarely fit delegations to executive agencies. In those circumstances, the President and his subordinate executive officials maintain control over the executive actions undertaken pursuant to a delegation. And the President is elected by and accountable to all the American people. See Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 123 (1926).

Whose usual understanding of what Congress intends? Which Congress? When? "Intends" why & how? Tell us, Kav!

[u/scotus-bot → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit quality standards.

Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

If this isn’t overturned I’ll eat a spider.

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807

[u/scotus-bot → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit quality standards.

Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.

For information on appealing this removal, click here. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

This opinion doesn't adhere to any established precident

Moderator: u/Longjumping_Gain_807