Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ihaveaquestion

(4,050 posts)
Wed Sep 10, 2025, 08:53 AM Wednesday

Supreme Court agrees to hear Oregon's lawsuit challenging Trump's tariffs

Sep 9, 2025 / 05:16 PM PDT

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear a case on Tuesday led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, challenging tariffs imposed by the Trump administration.

Attorney General Rayfield filed the lawsuit in April in the Court of International Trade in New York.

The lawsuit argues that the president does not have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, rather, Congress has the power to enact tariffs under Article I of the Constitution.
...
“The Supreme Court’s decision to take up this case is an important moment in our fight to keep checks and balances intact. The Constitution says that Congress—not the President—has the authority to set tariffs. Every court that’s looked at this so far has agreed with us,” Attorney General Rayfield said in a statement to KOIN 6 News.

“These tariffs have acted like a hidden tax, driving up costs for Oregon families and businesses,” Rayfield continued. “Our team is ready and prepared and we look forward to continuing to stand up for Oregonians.”

https://www.koin.com/news/politics/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-oregons-lawsuit-challenging-trumps-tariffs/

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court agrees to hear Oregon's lawsuit challenging Trump's tariffs (Original Post) ihaveaquestion Wednesday OP
Shadow docket ruling in 10, 9, 8... Bobstandard Wednesday #1
Deadline: Legal Blog-Supreme Court agrees to consider Trump tariffs appeal on expedited basis LetMyPeopleVote Wednesday #2

Bobstandard

(2,007 posts)
1. Shadow docket ruling in 10, 9, 8...
Wed Sep 10, 2025, 10:35 AM
Wednesday

This court’s majority will stand with their dear leader on this one too.

LetMyPeopleVote

(169,494 posts)
2. Deadline: Legal Blog-Supreme Court agrees to consider Trump tariffs appeal on expedited basis
Wed Sep 10, 2025, 05:26 PM
Wednesday

The president said that a ruling against his tariff authority would “literally destroy the United States of America.”

Supreme Court agrees to consider Trump tariffs appeal on expedited basis…

www.msnbc.com/deadline-whi...

Southern Belle 101 💋🖤✊🏾💙✊🏾 (@zenobiam.bsky.social) 2025-09-10T10:59:59.404Z

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-trump-tariffs-appeal-expedited-rcna229105

The Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear the Trump administration’s tariffs appeal on an expedited basis, in a case with vast implications for the economy and presidential power, setting a fast briefing schedule with a hearing to come in November.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against the administration Aug. 29, reasoning that the federal law invoked by President Donald Trump didn’t give him the authority he claimed. The circuit court kept its ruling on hold to provide a chance to appeal. The administration did so, asking the justices to hear the case on an expedited timeline. The justices agreed on Tuesday, also granting review in another tariff-related case that was pending before the court, consolidating the two appeals to consider together.

The court, whose next term starts in October, generally decides the term’s cases by early July. Given the expedited timeline on which the court agreed to hear the tariffs case, a decision could come well before then, although the justices aren’t on a deadline to rule.

Framing the matter as urgent, the administration told the justices that the circuit ruling “has disrupted highly impactful, sensitive, ongoing diplomatic trade negotiations, and cast a pall of legal uncertainty over the President’s efforts to protect our country by preventing an unprecedented economic and foreign-policy crisis.” Trump previously said that a ruling against him on the matter would “literally destroy the United States of America.”
Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Oregon»Supreme Court agrees to h...