General Discussion

lostincalifornia

(4,506 posts) Tue Sep 2, 2025, 07:59 AM Sep 2

The speculation from many so-called legal analysts is that the Supreme Court will back the lower court rulings

that trump does not have the authority to issue tariffs. That is in the jurisdiction of Congress.

After everything that THIS supreme court has allowed him to do, I am not sure why these legal analysts believe this supreme court won't rule in trump's favor?

I also suspect his degenerate administration will just find another avenue to employ these tariffs, including have the rethug congress cede their power to him.

According to Bloomberg there are at least five other options if the International Emergency Economic Powers Act cannot be used:

Section 232 Threat to national security by Commerce Department

Section 201 Injury to domestic industry by International Trade Commission Four years. May be extended to a maximum of eight years. 50% increase. Phasedown required after one year.

Section 301 Discrimination against US businesses or violation of US rights under trade agreements

Section 122 International payments problem
Section 338 Discrimination against US commerce

"In general, these alternatives come with more limits and procedural restrictions, meaning there’s less leeway for Trump to impose tariffs virtually immediately and set the rates as high as he chooses.

“The difference between them is how much process they require,” said Ted Murphy, co-leader of the global arbitration, trade and advocacy practice at law firm Sidley Austin. “Why they chose IEEPA, I think in part, was because it comes with no required process. It’s a determination that the president can make on his or her own initiative: There’s no hearing, there’s no report, there’s no nothing.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-01/trump-s-tariff-options-if-courts-rule-sweeping-levies-illegal

I would be very surprised if these tariffs go away anytime soon. Even this last ruling by the appeals court saying the way his tariffs were done is illegal, they still allowed the tariffs to stand until the Supreme Court weighs in.

Frankly, the SC shouldn't even accept the case. Tariffs come under the jurisdiction of Congress.

In the Constitution Article I, Section 8:
.
This section of the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.

Commerce Clause:
.
It also grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, which includes the power to set tariffs.

It will be interesting to see how this SC bends over backwards to the degenerate in the WH.

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The speculation from many so-called legal analysts is that the Supreme Court will back the lower court rulings (Original Post) lostincalifornia Sep 2 OP

I'd like to see a variety of Amicus briefs submitted by no_hypocrisy Sep 2 #1

That would be interesting, however, when I saw the thugs on the SC twisting themselves into pretzels trying lostincalifornia Sep 2 #4

Points taken. However, I would like to have the premiere legal minds put on record no_hypocrisy Sep 2 #5

Shopping for the next tariff loophole won't be a good look legally or publicly bucolic_frolic Sep 2 #2

You don't think he will do it? That is, they would look and employ a "tariff loophole"? lostincalifornia Sep 2 #3

I'm not convince that the Supreme Court will completely shut him down, but I agree about other avenues. unblock Sep 2 #6

Sadly, I'm in agreement with you. Gimpyknee Sep 2 #7

There has to be some sort of way to get the Deplorable base to NoMoreRepugs Sep 2 #8

My hope is that these analysts know something we do not about the personal intentions of people on the court SSJVegeta Sep 2 #9

Krugman today said Old Crank Sep 2 #10

This SCOTUS has put itself in the business MLWR Sep 2 #11

Yeah, but these are the same "experts" who said SCOTUS would never grant a President immunity for crimes Jersey Devil Sep 2 #12

The SC might use this case to try to regain some street cred. rubbersole Sep 2 #13

SCOTUS will support TSF using the legal principle... Girard442 Sep 2 #14

It will be interesting to see them claim that bananas and coffee are a threat to national security. nt Xipe Totec Sep 2 #15

Yesterday I read that T💩p's tariffs cost the US citizens $150B. OMGWTF Sep 2 #16

I'm very cynical about any case SCOTUS takes up ... aggiesal Sep 2 #17

no_hypocrisy

(53,114 posts)

1. I'd like to see a variety of Amicus briefs submitted by

Reply to lostincalifornia (Original post)

Tue Sep 2, 2025, 08:04 AM

Sep 2

Laurence Tribe, J. Michael Luttig, and a bunch of law professors from Harvard, Yale, etc. that argue against tariffs via EO.

lostincalifornia

(4,506 posts)

4. That would be interesting, however, when I saw the thugs on the SC twisting themselves into pretzels trying

Reply to no_hypocrisy (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 2, 2025, 08:16 AM

Sep 2

to justify that a president is immune from criminal prosecution, I won't be surprised if they employ similar logic, even using the sociopath's argument that it is a "national emergency". Of course omitting the part that the disasters we are currently facing are directly attributed to him an his administration.

no_hypocrisy

(53,114 posts)

5. Points taken. However, I would like to have the premiere legal minds put on record

Reply to lostincalifornia (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 2, 2025, 08:33 AM

Sep 2

how SCOTUS should reason and rule appropriately.

bucolic_frolic

(52,434 posts)

2. Shopping for the next tariff loophole won't be a good look legally or publicly

Reply to lostincalifornia (Original post)

Tue Sep 2, 2025, 08:06 AM

Sep 2

Tariffs manufactured from whole cloth to suit his revenue, tax, spending, political goals. Not convincing to anyone.

lostincalifornia

(4,506 posts)

3. You don't think he will do it? That is, they would look and employ a "tariff loophole"?

Reply to bucolic_frolic (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 2, 2025, 08:11 AM

Sep 2

unblock

(55,636 posts)

6. I'm not convince that the Supreme Court will completely shut him down, but I agree about other avenues.

Reply to lostincalifornia (Original post)

Tue Sep 2, 2025, 08:35 AM

Sep 2

They might find a way to kick it back to the lower court for further analysis. Anything to drag it out.

But yeah, if they shut it down, Donnie will keep tariffs under a different excuse. And then that will take a year to work its way through the courts. Then another effort. His term will be over before they shut down every avenue.

Gimpyknee

(650 posts)

7. Sadly, I'm in agreement with you.

Reply to lostincalifornia (Original post)

Tue Sep 2, 2025, 08:40 AM

Sep 2

I have doubts the SC will do the right thing.

NoMoreRepugs

(11,629 posts)

8. There has to be some sort of way to get the Deplorable base to

Reply to lostincalifornia (Original post)

Tue Sep 2, 2025, 08:51 AM

Sep 2

understand that tariffs raise their prices short of tattooing it on their foreheads. MSM - are you out there???

SSJVegeta

(1,501 posts)

9. My hope is that these analysts know something we do not about the personal intentions of people on the court

Reply to lostincalifornia (Original post)

Tue Sep 2, 2025, 08:55 AM

Sep 2

That if the lower courts revolt it would discredit the supreme court altogether, which could be something most in scotus are concerned about.

Old Crank

(6,233 posts)

10. Krugman today said

Reply to lostincalifornia (Original post)

Tue Sep 2, 2025, 08:56 AM

Sep 2

That according to Bessent cancelling the tariffs would embarrass the country.

He thinks this is a novel legal argument.. We did something illegal but you can't call us on it because it would be embarrassing.

Also it appears that Lutnick's firm run by his kids are spearheading the buying up of tariff reclamation rights.
So at least one in this administration believes the court could go against Trump. These are some pretty expensive bets laid to pay companies about 20% of the tariff paid.

MLWR

(546 posts)

11. This SCOTUS has put itself in the business

Reply to lostincalifornia (Original post)

Tue Sep 2, 2025, 08:56 AM

Sep 2

of shredding the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution, for example, clearly lists "bribery" as one of the "high crimes and misdemeanors." This SCOTUS ruled for Citizens United, which basically legalized "bribery" if not in so many words. The six have violated their oaths of office over and over again. Nothing they do surprises me anymore.

Jersey Devil

(10,488 posts)

12. Yeah, but these are the same "experts" who said SCOTUS would never grant a President immunity for crimes

Reply to lostincalifornia (Original post)

Tue Sep 2, 2025, 09:00 AM

Sep 2

With this Supreme Court you can't predict anything.

rubbersole

(10,566 posts)

13. The SC might use this case to try to regain some street cred.

Reply to lostincalifornia (Original post)

Tue Sep 2, 2025, 09:07 AM

Sep 2

The language in the Constitution couldn't be more clear. tsf is circling the drain and barking at clouds. Tariffs are economically stupid and counterproductive. But, but the Federalist Society might have other motives...and logic no longer pertains.

Girard442

(6,759 posts)

14. SCOTUS will support TSF using the legal principle...

Reply to lostincalifornia (Original post)

Tue Sep 2, 2025, 09:14 AM

Sep 2

Ipso facto rectum extracto.

Xipe Totec

(44,397 posts)

15. It will be interesting to see them claim that bananas and coffee are a threat to national security. nt

Reply to lostincalifornia (Original post)

Tue Sep 2, 2025, 10:05 AM

Sep 2

OMGWTF

(4,906 posts)

16. Yesterday I read that T💩p's tariffs cost the US citizens $150B.

Reply to lostincalifornia (Original post)

Tue Sep 2, 2025, 10:08 AM

Sep 2

Where does the money go? Into T💩p’s pockets?

aggiesal

(10,324 posts)

17. I'm very cynical about any case SCOTUS takes up ...

Reply to lostincalifornia (Original post)

Tue Sep 2, 2025, 10:26 AM

Sep 2

Their 🍝 logic on previous cases to satisfy der leader, make me suspect that they will continue with this unitary Presidential theory, which KBJ has been calling them out on.

Reply to this discussion