Subject: Re: Tariffs Enjoined For Now
And Jonathan Turley has an excellent take on this:

https://jonathanturley.org/202...

The three-judge panel held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) does not give the president “such unbounded authority.”

While some have criticized the court as a “judicial coup,” it is a well-reasoned and good-faith decision from judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Trump.

While the court, in my view, should have issued a stay pending appeal, a wide array of experts have questioned the authority under the IEEPA, which is designed to address a national emergency. The authority does not mention tariffs and has never been used for tariffs. There’s a good chance the Supreme Court upholds the ruling.

On the decision itself:
Rejecting Trump’s authority under IEEPA does not mean he lacks all authority for tariffs. The administration is correct in arguing that Congress has repeatedly deferred to presidents on tariffs, granting them sweeping authority.

For example, the ruling does not affect Trump’s “sector tariffs” under the Trade Expansion Act, which impose 25% levies on steel, aluminum, and auto imports.

Likewise, the court acknowledged that Trump has the authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act to impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address “fundamental international payment problems,” including trade deficits. After conducting further investigation into these problems, he can then impose long-term tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

This was my concern, that the ruling removed all tariff authority from the President. It doesn't, and that's a good thing. The chief executive needs to have a tool to use in the event of emergencies.

And the rub is:

Moreover, there is strong support for reciprocal tariffs to match the costs and barriers placed on our goods by other countries.

...which are significant.

Nevertheless, Trump was right about the market barriers and unfair treatment shown by other countries, including some of our closest allies. The resulting deals will be good for the United States and could represent the most significant move toward open markets in a generation.

These are difficult issues, and we need to tamp down the rhetoric. These judges are not the enemy. Neither is Trump. Trump is trying to use every possible law to achieve historic reforms. These judges are trying to guarantee that such priorities do not take precedence over the rule of law.