General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDon't get too excited if SCOTUS decides tariff's imposed under IEEPA are illegal.
Given the majority's penchant for giving the felon whatever he wants, I thought it was almost a given that they would reverse the lower court decisions that tariffs imposed under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are unlawful.
After hearing commentary on how the hearing went on Thursday, it sounds like they may uphold lower court findings. That sure sounded great to me.
Unfortunately, as I poked around some more, a hole got poked into my balloon of cautious optimism. It is sounding like holding IEEPA tariffs to be illegal may not make much difference given the lawless man we are dealing with. There will be a lot of future litigation as the felon goes to almost any lengths to hold onto tariffs collected under IEEPA and keep those tariffs in place with new illegal claims he has the power to do it under some other inapplicable statute.
There are a variety of articles out there touching on this. The most helpful thing I came across was a Nov 4 Alert from the law firm Covington & Burling.
https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/2025/11/dont-count-on-immediate-ieepa-refunds-what-president-trump-might-do-if-scotus-throws-out-ieepa-tariffs
Some bits from it:
They go on to review two possible courses of unilateral action:
First, the Administration may seek to avoid issuing refunds by arguing that at least some of the tariffs imposed under existing IEEPA Executive Orders (EOs) nonetheless remain effective, as to both past and future imports, because they are justified by other authorities not explicitly identified in the EOsparticularly those not requiring predicate agency action. This strategy would leverage the fact that the President is not himself subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (which requires agencies to follow certain procedural and notice requirements), and generally need not explain his decision-making except as required by statute. Though there appears to be little precedent for such a strategy, and it would face obstacles, the Administration may at least delayand perhaps limitrefunds by pursuing it...
(more detail follows)
B. The President May Rely on Tariff Statutes Outside IEEPA to Issue New Executive Orders to Apply Tariffs Retroactively
First, the Administration may seek to avoid issuing refunds by arguing that at least some of the tariffs imposed under existing IEEPA Executive Orders (EOs) nonetheless remain effective, as to both past and future imports, because they are justified by other authorities not explicitly identified in the EOsparticularly those not requiring predicate agency action. This strategy would leverage the fact that the President is not himself subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (which requires agencies to follow certain procedural and notice requirements), and generally need not explain his decision-making except as required by statute. Though there appears to be little precedent for such a strategy, and it would face obstacles, the Administration may at least delayand perhaps limitrefunds by pursuing it....
(more detail follows).
They note that
Alternatively, the President could attempt to work with Congress to retroactively authorize the IEEPA tariffs.
After the Senate vote against Tariffs, I don't imagine there will be much appetite to pass laws to retroactively legalize the illegal tariffs.
Don't get me wrong. Having our position that the administration is imposing tariffs in violation of the law vindicated is a very good thing. There will be consequences of these tariffs being deemed illegal that will further weaken and damage the felon. All good on that!
I'm just feeling a little deflated at the prospect of the coming battles as he breaks new laws to keep his precious tariffs in place.
The majority on SCOTUS are well aware that he'll just refuse to do anything he doesn't want to do and will come up with new flimsy covers that will ultimately declared unlawful. That may be why they are willing to rule against him -- because they figure they aren't actually derailing the advance of his diplomatically and economically devastating and illegal agenda.
Metaphorical
(2,560 posts)SCOTUS may slap TFG's hand with a wet noodle, but he'll turn around with some other BS excuse. It's the only way he knows how to negotiate: bullying, and he knows that there isn't a damn thing that the SCOTUS can do if he disobeys them.
pat_k
(12,436 posts)It felt great. That is, until I took a beat to get a handle on how things would, or wouldn't change.
I do think it will weaken him, and make the tariffs even more despised (if that is possible). That he was doing this despised thing in violation of the law just adds insult to injury.
Wiz Imp
(8,081 posts)The tariffs are going to be a major drag on the economy as long as they remain in place & they will boost inflation at least somewhat (while doing next to nothing to increase Federal revenues - so no reduction in the debt). The economy is going to be crap for the next year no matter what, but keeping tariffs in place will just make the economy significantly worse.
pat_k
(12,436 posts)...to impose the tariffs he illegally imposed under IEEPA under some other statutes all along.
Of course SCOTUS declaring the tariffs imposed under IEEPA to be illegal would ABSOLUTELY be a good thing.
The problem is that the ruling may not have a substantial practical effect on actually getting rid of the illegally imposed IEEPA tariffs. And we are talking a hell of a lot of tariffs.
In my reading of the Alert from Covington (linked in OP) it seems the other statutes they may fall back on don't legally "fit" the tariffs imposed any more than IEEPA did. But that won't stop them from unlawfully claiming those other statutes do apply.
The problem is that this regime takes a "We are doing X. Y gives us the power to do X. Just try to stop us."
Of course they are lying. They know they don't actually have power under Y, but they do what they want, and initially get away it. Communities, cities, unions, states, and public interest organizations large and small have sued and have stopped them again and again -- over something like 200 times -- but litigation takes time and in the meantime, the 47 regime keep it's bulldozer going.
It would be great if the ruling actually ended a substantial number of the illegal tariffs. The problem is, it may not because we can expect the same playbook they use on everything else to be used to illegally keep the tariffs in place for as long as they can possibly get away with it.