A federal court has struck down President Donald Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs on a wide range of countries, saying his effort to justify them with broad claims of national emergencies exceeded his legal authority.
The unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade strikes a blow to one the central planks of Trump’s economic agenda at a time he is seeking to use tariffs as leverage to strike trade deals around the world.
Annnnd the appeals court reverted it. I want to be clear that people need to be very wary of headlines like this, they fundamentally don't really mean much. The situation we're in is such that...
Annnnd the appeals court reverted it.
I want to be clear that people need to be very wary of headlines like this, they fundamentally don't really mean much. The situation we're in is such that Trump can very easily end around any court decision and swamp them with yet another case that's technically different.
None of this really matters to the market because while there are initial jumps, the long term image is based on the fact that the courts and Trump are playing chicken, and no one expects and real resolution anytime soon (i feel like the midterms is the earliest we could expect it IF something doesn't fall apart before then).
So even a SC decision is unlikely to actually resolve any of this, because it's just not that simple. We're way off the map here, and in some ways that's a good thing (proving rather than expecting), but it's certainly not going to be solved in one decision.
Do you have a link? I found this: Second federal court blocks Trump’s tariffs from today Edit: found it. It's not reversed it's temporarily held Trump tariffs reinstated by appeals court for now
A federal appeals court on Thursday granted the Trump administration's request to temporarily pause a lower-court ruling that struck down most of President Donald Trump's tariffs.
The Trump administration had told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that it would seek "emergency relief" from the Supreme Court as soon as Friday if the tariff ruling was not quickly put on pause.
Apparently it's "temporary:" The appeals court didn't rule on the merits of the case and it isn't unusual to pause things while courts consider appeals. It will probably go to the Supreme Court....
Apparently it's "temporary:"
“temporarily stayed until further notice while this court considers the motions papers,”
The appeals court didn't rule on the merits of the case and it isn't unusual to pause things while courts consider appeals. It will probably go to the Supreme Court. So it's not over, but starting the appeals process with a favorable ruling is a good start.
I disagree that it doesn't matter. We haven't gotten to the point (yet) where Supreme Court rulings don't matter, and I hope we never do. Yes, the Trump administration will try tactics to weasel out of it, but at least a majority of the Supreme Court isn't fooled.
It won't be the end to all of Trump's tariffs because there are other ways that are legal. (For example, the Biden administration imposed some pretty significant tariffs on solar panels, etc.)
Yes sorry I wasn't clear. It was only "temporary" but functionally for those doing business it's still a problem. Was more just pushing back against the idea that this ruling as mentioned in the...
Yes sorry I wasn't clear. It was only "temporary" but functionally for those doing business it's still a problem. Was more just pushing back against the idea that this ruling as mentioned in the original article was some be all end all (as it seems many took it that way), rather than "yep and now they return the volley and we repeat again".
And i think your optimism isn't exactly wrong, but also missing what Trump's doing. He knows he doesn't have the SC in his pocket, so he's overwhelming them with cases. That's a different way to bypass, and functionally still leads to the same economic behavior because you can't plan your 6 month out shipments assuming the courts will have already settled the most recent batch of excuses for tariffs.
It's good that it isn't worse as we'd really be in dire straights then, but at the same time Trump's plan is to once again get everything he's doing back in court limbo or "well it's the job of congress" where he's got a much stronger grip.
I also think we will continue to see uncertainty about tariffs, and that Trump is causing it. I don't see it working in his favor. It's not a good way to bring more manufacturing in the US. When...
I also think we will continue to see uncertainty about tariffs, and that Trump is causing it. I don't see it working in his favor. It's not a good way to bring more manufacturing in the US. When companies can't plan ahead then they won't invest as much. They'll be more cautious, shipping what they already make when tariffs are low again. So I don't count that as a win for Trump or as "part of the plan."
On the other hand, for what it's worth, the combination of Trump's and Biden's tariffs on China is getting companies to move some manufacturing out of China. That's because it's more consistent - bipartisan, even.
I just now saw this on MSNBC's YouTube channel. YES! SWEET! Of course, it remains to be seen if and how swiftly these reversals will be put into effect, and a huge amount of unrecoverable damage...
I just now saw this on MSNBC's YouTube channel. YES! SWEET!
Of course, it remains to be seen if and how swiftly these reversals will be put into effect, and a huge amount of unrecoverable damage has already been done, but still, take good news / reduction of bad news where you can get it.
Like many others I am curious about how 'vacate' will be interpreted and enforced. I'm sure everyone is hoping that works as a simple refund, but we'll have to wait and see on that as well.
I'm of two minds here. Trump likes his strong man act and this let's him back off and save face. It won't be that he chickened out (from the recent Wallstreet take, TACO - Trump Always Chickens...
I'm of two minds here. Trump likes his strong man act and this let's him back off and save face. It won't be that he chickened out (from the recent Wallstreet take, TACO - Trump Always Chickens Out), it will be the woke left courts won't let him run the country. He took a strong recovering economy and steered it towards a recession, and as much as he wants to blame Biden/the Fed, it will reflect poorly on him if it happens. If we're to believe it is their fault, then he was too weak/powerless to stop it. If it's his fault... Why that just cannot be.
However, Trump reaaally likes to play trade war. This Administration has started taking the "okay, let's see you enforce it" stance with the courts, because ultimately, the courts can't. The Supreme Court gave POTUS broad immunity in the fallout of Trump's last term and POTUS can pardon their underlings. So the courts can finger wag, but Congress has to step up in a big way to enforce anything. That, or The Court has to just up and reverse their decision like they did with Roe v. Wade.
So it's a coin toss, does he double down to prove he doesn't TACO? Or does he take the out and blame the left? Find out this week on Horse in the Hospital!
Looks like he's going to double down: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/114596705340367716 Here's him ranting about how the evil Trump and America hating courts tried to stop him from...
In a way, I'm disappointed by this. I'm not supporter of Trump or his agenda or that of his pals and supporters. He (and they) are chaotic evil, and the used this tool chaotically for evil. But I...
In a way, I'm disappointed by this. I'm not supporter of Trump or his agenda or that of his pals and supporters. He (and they) are chaotic evil, and the used this tool chaotically for evil. But I have long been a supporter of tariffs. I want them applied to every import in the US that was created in a way to unfairly burden the environment, laborers, or other populations of people, at a level that fully equalizes the price difference based on those externalized costs. In other words, if your USB dongle is $5 cheaper because you didn't have to manage your pollution, a $5 tariff will be imposed. The point is to avoid the "race to the bottom phenomenon" which happens both with US States and World States.
This does not ban tariffs, it just means the president doesn't have the authority to place them without an actual emergency. Congress can still do what you want them to do, not that it's likely...
This does not ban tariffs, it just means the president doesn't have the authority to place them without an actual emergency. Congress can still do what you want them to do, not that it's likely that any congress or president would do that.
Well, once the U.S. gets a government that recognizes the climate crisis for what it is technically, according to this ruling, the POTUS will absolutely be able to enact the tariffs you suggest....
Well, once the U.S. gets a government that recognizes the climate crisis for what it is technically, according to this ruling, the POTUS will absolutely be able to enact the tariffs you suggest. The crux of this issue is that there was no 'economic' emergency that spurred the need for the President to enact these tariffs unilaterally.
What would that accomplish exactly? Tariffs will not solve the problem of price inequality, it'll either decouple trade entirely if they're steep enough like the 150% China tariffs or achieve...
What would that accomplish exactly? Tariffs will not solve the problem of price inequality, it'll either decouple trade entirely if they're steep enough like the 150% China tariffs or achieve nothing more than simply being an extra tax on the citizens. It won't prevent a race to the bottom, it raises the bar on what the bottom is at best.
The tariffed money isn't going to the 20ct an hour laborer, it goes straight to the US coffers.
I believe the idea assumes that the government is willing and able to accurately value the cost savings companies are getting specifically for dodging United States environmental regulations. I'm...
I believe the idea assumes that the government is willing and able to accurately value the cost savings companies are getting specifically for dodging United States environmental regulations.
I'm not sure if it's practical, but that information is out there and if it can be applied consistently, I'm for it. Not unlike the idea (which I believe I first encountered around here) of the federal government levying a 100% tax on local tax breaks to corporations, to stop municipalities from engaging in their own race to the bottom looking to lure undecided companies to build on their land.
Ignoring that there is no way in hell you could easily arrive at this number, tariffs do not affect corporations. They affect consumers. The corp will still make the USB dongle in some...
Ignoring that there is no way in hell you could easily arrive at this number, tariffs do not affect corporations. They affect consumers.
The corp will still make the USB dongle in some environmentally unfriendly country and the consumer will pay more for it.
Even if you somehow “even out” the pollution avoidance and what not, you’ll still have comparative advantages and what not.
I think proper application of tariffs is important - for example, the protective tariffs for Canadian Dairy have done a great job of protecting Canadians and encouraging us to buy dairy products...
I think proper application of tariffs is important - for example, the protective tariffs for Canadian Dairy have done a great job of protecting Canadians and encouraging us to buy dairy products that are more locally produced, and protect our dairy market so that we can continue to locally produce dairy. So I understand approving of tariffs.
This wasn't a proper use of tariffs though. I know analogies often get picked apart because they're not perfect, but this feels like reading about Alex Ewing, the Hammer Killer, and then lamenting that they took hammers away from him because you can build a lot of nice things with hammers.
Tariffs can be great, and they can be applied with reason. That is not what was happening, and it should have long since been stopped.
It’s been clear from the beginning that he can’t legally place tariffs but he was taking advantage of a loophole which lets him claim a fake emergency. He does many illegal things as quickly as...
It’s been clear from the beginning that he can’t legally place tariffs but he was taking advantage of a loophole which lets him claim a fake emergency. He does many illegal things as quickly as possible because the law takes time to catch up. Meanwhile he has caused long term damage to the economy and soft power of the country. Also the way he’s been randomly changing the tariffs makes them useless for any of his stated purposes. It’s not going to raise revenue or bring more jobs or factories to the US because no business can plan for the chaos. But he and his associates have clearly profited from insider trading that has happened when the market responds to tariff news.
The only reason I’d be slightly disappointed about this is protecting him from his own bad decisions. His supporters will only stop supporting him when they are personally affected, and the tariffs are hurting them (and everyone) a lot. This is all the responsibility of the republican congress and they need to be voted out.
I think this was inevitable at the level of a lower court, since it is factually correct. The real question is whether it gets reversed at the Supreme Court where the conservative wing is vibe ruling.
I think this was inevitable at the level of a lower court, since it is factually correct. The real question is whether it gets reversed at the Supreme Court where the conservative wing is vibe ruling.
From the article:
Annnnd the appeals court reverted it.
I want to be clear that people need to be very wary of headlines like this, they fundamentally don't really mean much. The situation we're in is such that Trump can very easily end around any court decision and swamp them with yet another case that's technically different.
None of this really matters to the market because while there are initial jumps, the long term image is based on the fact that the courts and Trump are playing chicken, and no one expects and real resolution anytime soon (i feel like the midterms is the earliest we could expect it IF something doesn't fall apart before then).
So even a SC decision is unlikely to actually resolve any of this, because it's just not that simple. We're way off the map here, and in some ways that's a good thing (proving rather than expecting), but it's certainly not going to be solved in one decision.
Do you have a link?
I found this: Second federal court blocks Trump’s tariffs from today
Edit: found it. It's not reversed it's temporarily held
Trump tariffs reinstated by appeals court for now
Apparently it's "temporary:"
The appeals court didn't rule on the merits of the case and it isn't unusual to pause things while courts consider appeals. It will probably go to the Supreme Court. So it's not over, but starting the appeals process with a favorable ruling is a good start.
I disagree that it doesn't matter. We haven't gotten to the point (yet) where Supreme Court rulings don't matter, and I hope we never do. Yes, the Trump administration will try tactics to weasel out of it, but at least a majority of the Supreme Court isn't fooled.
It won't be the end to all of Trump's tariffs because there are other ways that are legal. (For example, the Biden administration imposed some pretty significant tariffs on solar panels, etc.)
Yes sorry I wasn't clear. It was only "temporary" but functionally for those doing business it's still a problem. Was more just pushing back against the idea that this ruling as mentioned in the original article was some be all end all (as it seems many took it that way), rather than "yep and now they return the volley and we repeat again".
And i think your optimism isn't exactly wrong, but also missing what Trump's doing. He knows he doesn't have the SC in his pocket, so he's overwhelming them with cases. That's a different way to bypass, and functionally still leads to the same economic behavior because you can't plan your 6 month out shipments assuming the courts will have already settled the most recent batch of excuses for tariffs.
It's good that it isn't worse as we'd really be in dire straights then, but at the same time Trump's plan is to once again get everything he's doing back in court limbo or "well it's the job of congress" where he's got a much stronger grip.
I also think we will continue to see uncertainty about tariffs, and that Trump is causing it. I don't see it working in his favor. It's not a good way to bring more manufacturing in the US. When companies can't plan ahead then they won't invest as much. They'll be more cautious, shipping what they already make when tariffs are low again. So I don't count that as a win for Trump or as "part of the plan."
On the other hand, for what it's worth, the combination of Trump's and Biden's tariffs on China is getting companies to move some manufacturing out of China. That's because it's more consistent - bipartisan, even.
I just now saw this on MSNBC's YouTube channel. YES! SWEET!
Of course, it remains to be seen if and how swiftly these reversals will be put into effect, and a huge amount of unrecoverable damage has already been done, but still, take good news / reduction of bad news where you can get it.
Like many others I am curious about how 'vacate' will be interpreted and enforced. I'm sure everyone is hoping that works as a simple refund, but we'll have to wait and see on that as well.
I'm of two minds here. Trump likes his strong man act and this let's him back off and save face. It won't be that he chickened out (from the recent Wallstreet take, TACO - Trump Always Chickens Out), it will be the woke left courts won't let him run the country. He took a strong recovering economy and steered it towards a recession, and as much as he wants to blame Biden/the Fed, it will reflect poorly on him if it happens. If we're to believe it is their fault, then he was too weak/powerless to stop it. If it's his fault... Why that just cannot be.
However, Trump reaaally likes to play trade war. This Administration has started taking the "okay, let's see you enforce it" stance with the courts, because ultimately, the courts can't. The Supreme Court gave POTUS broad immunity in the fallout of Trump's last term and POTUS can pardon their underlings. So the courts can finger wag, but Congress has to step up in a big way to enforce anything. That, or The Court has to just up and reverse their decision like they did with Roe v. Wade.
So it's a coin toss, does he double down to prove he doesn't TACO? Or does he take the out and blame the left? Find out this week on Horse in the Hospital!
Edit: typo
Looks like he's going to double down: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/114596705340367716
Here's him ranting about how the evil Trump and America hating courts tried to stop him from running the country. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/114593880455063168
Here's a post by one of the lawyers, who is a law professor at George Mason.
In a way, I'm disappointed by this. I'm not supporter of Trump or his agenda or that of his pals and supporters. He (and they) are chaotic evil, and the used this tool chaotically for evil. But I have long been a supporter of tariffs. I want them applied to every import in the US that was created in a way to unfairly burden the environment, laborers, or other populations of people, at a level that fully equalizes the price difference based on those externalized costs. In other words, if your USB dongle is $5 cheaper because you didn't have to manage your pollution, a $5 tariff will be imposed. The point is to avoid the "race to the bottom phenomenon" which happens both with US States and World States.
This does not ban tariffs, it just means the president doesn't have the authority to place them without an actual emergency. Congress can still do what you want them to do, not that it's likely that any congress or president would do that.
Well, once the U.S. gets a government that recognizes the climate crisis for what it is technically, according to this ruling, the POTUS will absolutely be able to enact the tariffs you suggest. The crux of this issue is that there was no 'economic' emergency that spurred the need for the President to enact these tariffs unilaterally.
What would that accomplish exactly? Tariffs will not solve the problem of price inequality, it'll either decouple trade entirely if they're steep enough like the 150% China tariffs or achieve nothing more than simply being an extra tax on the citizens. It won't prevent a race to the bottom, it raises the bar on what the bottom is at best.
The tariffed money isn't going to the 20ct an hour laborer, it goes straight to the US coffers.
Am I missing something?
I believe the idea assumes that the government is willing and able to accurately value the cost savings companies are getting specifically for dodging United States environmental regulations.
I'm not sure if it's practical, but that information is out there and if it can be applied consistently, I'm for it. Not unlike the idea (which I believe I first encountered around here) of the federal government levying a 100% tax on local tax breaks to corporations, to stop municipalities from engaging in their own race to the bottom looking to lure undecided companies to build on their land.
Ignoring that there is no way in hell you could easily arrive at this number, tariffs do not affect corporations. They affect consumers.
The corp will still make the USB dongle in some environmentally unfriendly country and the consumer will pay more for it.
Even if you somehow “even out” the pollution avoidance and what not, you’ll still have comparative advantages and what not.
Tariffs are not the tool for this.
I think proper application of tariffs is important - for example, the protective tariffs for Canadian Dairy have done a great job of protecting Canadians and encouraging us to buy dairy products that are more locally produced, and protect our dairy market so that we can continue to locally produce dairy. So I understand approving of tariffs.
This wasn't a proper use of tariffs though. I know analogies often get picked apart because they're not perfect, but this feels like reading about Alex Ewing, the Hammer Killer, and then lamenting that they took hammers away from him because you can build a lot of nice things with hammers.
Tariffs can be great, and they can be applied with reason. That is not what was happening, and it should have long since been stopped.
It’s been clear from the beginning that he can’t legally place tariffs but he was taking advantage of a loophole which lets him claim a fake emergency. He does many illegal things as quickly as possible because the law takes time to catch up. Meanwhile he has caused long term damage to the economy and soft power of the country. Also the way he’s been randomly changing the tariffs makes them useless for any of his stated purposes. It’s not going to raise revenue or bring more jobs or factories to the US because no business can plan for the chaos. But he and his associates have clearly profited from insider trading that has happened when the market responds to tariff news.
The only reason I’d be slightly disappointed about this is protecting him from his own bad decisions. His supporters will only stop supporting him when they are personally affected, and the tariffs are hurting them (and everyone) a lot. This is all the responsibility of the republican congress and they need to be voted out.
I think this was inevitable at the level of a lower court, since it is factually correct. The real question is whether it gets reversed at the Supreme Court where the conservative wing is vibe ruling.