The courts seem to want to just hand over every advantage to foreign countries.

Trump's attempt to impose new 10% tariffs gets struck down by a panel of judges
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/07/business/tariff-case-ten-percent-trump-court-international-trade

Quote:

---

President Donald Trump's 10% across-the-board tariffs are in jeopardy after a federal court ruled them illegal on Thursday, dealing a second major blow this year to the president's signature economic policy.
In a 2-1 ruling, the panel of judges at the US Court of International Trade found the administration lacked the justification to enact tariffs under a 1974 trade law known as Section 122. The administration began to enact these tariffs after a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year rendered its most sweeping levies illegal.
Thursday's ruling calls for the administration to cease collecting these tariffs from the plaintiffs and refund prior payments. While only applicable to the impacted plaintiffs, it's a major setback for the Trump administration and its tariff-enacting capacities.

---

Quote:

---

Thursday's ruling calls for the administration to cease collecting these tariffs from the plaintiffs and refund prior payments. While only applicable to the impacted plaintiffs, it's a major setback for the Trump administration and its tariff-enacting capacities.

---

I can agree with that. If Yrumps tariffs were outside the powers granted by law, then they need to be undone. Some have been, some haven't been.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I can agree with that. If Yrumps tariffs were outside the powers granted by law, then they need to be undone. Some have been, some haven't been.

---

And I agree with that also.

He would have been better served to be a bit more thoughtful and deliberate about tariffs, but that's water-under-the-bridge at this point.

Our own laws will be the end of us.
Everyone else does as they please and our own Constt prevents us from retaliating.

infinity ag said:

---

Our own laws will be the end of us.
Everyone else does as they please and our own Constt prevents us from retaliating.

---

Couldn't Trump get his congressional people to work on changing those laws? Even if they go nowhere, couldn't they at least try?

No Spin Ag said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Our own laws will be the end of us.
Everyone else does as they please and our own Constt prevents us from retaliating.

---

Couldn't Trump get his congressional people to work on changing those laws? Even if they go nowhere, couldn't they at least try?

---

The Republican Party isn't a monolithic entity. It's comprised of MAGA, libertarians, former Yellow Dog democrats (although they are dying out), etc. To many people's chagrin, this is why the GOP can't accomplish much even though they are nominally in the majority. At least McConnell got through some conservative judges and justices when he was majority leader.

Sucks, but it is what it is.

BusterAg said:

---

The trade act of 1974 gives POTUS very broad authority for 150 day tariffs.

The problem with the courts these days is that they don't really pay attention to the rule of law as much as they do politics. I will take a look at the ruling and see if and how bad of a pretzel the CIT twisted into to get to this decision.

---

What's your experience with the 1974 Trade Act? I've never even heard of it.

From what I read the ruling was due the Trump admin did not provide concrete evidence that the basis of section 122 could be applied. in the courts opinion the State conflated the trade deficit with the balance of payments requirement to legally use this section of the 1974 act. They are different (don't ask me how, I don't have time to dive even deeper). When presented with the full scope of what makes up the balance of payments court found that there was not such an emergency with these balance of payments that justified the use of this section 122.

It will be appealed and it will be interesting to see how the court of appeals views this. The State is already on the hook for repaying the other tariffs, now they have to pay back the plaintiffs in this case and in July will have to refund those subjected to tariffs under this provision after that date.

Im Gipper said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

The trade act of 1974 gives POTUS very broad authority for 150 day tariffs.

The problem with the courts these days is that they don't really pay attention to the rule of law as much as they do politics. I will take a look at the ruling and see if and how bad of a pretzel the CIT twisted into to get to this decision.

---

What's your experience with the 1974 Trade Act? I've never even heard of it.

---

I have experience with reading comprehension. The plain language of the act allows POTUS to enact tariffs to combat, for example, significant trade imbalances. I would call that pretty broad.

BusterAg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

The trade act of 1974 gives POTUS very broad authority for 150 day tariffs.

The problem with the courts these days is that they don't really pay attention to the rule of law as much as they do politics. I will take a look at the ruling and see if and how bad of a pretzel the CIT twisted into to get to this decision.

---

What's your experience with the 1974 Trade Act? I've never even heard of it.

---

I have experience with reading comprehension. The plain language of the act allows POTUS to enact tariffs to combat, for example, significant trade imbalances. I would call that pretty broad.

---

One thing that Act has for certain sections that I wish every tax increase or spending program other than national defense and a few other constitutionally required expenditures is a subset provision. If it is popular enough, let Congress vote to continue the program or tax increase otherwise it goes away after no more than 10 years.

InfinityAg should change his username to Tariff Ag

So, the CIT basically said that the Trade Act of 1974 related only to the Bretton Woods system, and, now that this system is obsolete, the Trade Act is also basically obsolete.

This is a farce, in my opinion, and reads into the law verbiage that is not there.

The law says that the objective of the law is:

Quote:

---

A principal United States negotiating objective under sections 101 and 102 shall be to obtain, to the maximum extent feasible, with respect to appropriate product sectors of manufacturing, and with respect to the agricultural sector, competitive opportunities for United States exports to the developed countries of the world equivalent to the competitive opportunities afforded in United States markets to the importation of like or similar products, taking into account all barriers (including tariffs) to and other distortions of international trade affecting that sector.

---

This clearly puts the Trump Tariffs in line with the objectives of the law. The massive trade imbalances in the era of fiat currency and manipulation of exchange rates by foreign countries ensure that the United States does not have the same competitive opportunities to export to those countries that those countries have in exporting to the US.

It's a BS ruling made by judges that are being intellectually dishonest about their lack of understanding of economics to get to a result that is what they prefer politically.

I am against all attempts, made any elected official, to influence my spending habits.


- edit -

Sorry, InfinityAg.

I intended to use the smiley face emoji.

The courts are not the arbiters of what constitutes an emergency.

fireinthehole said:

---

The courts are not the arbiters of what constitutes an emergency.

---

If this is our system, it is terribly flawed and no wonder everyone is gaming us.

Our country was designed for 1776AD. Not 2026AD. Things happen in realtime now, not horse and buggy speed.

The President must be given more powers to figure out what is emergency and take action. Not wait for Congress which has its own timeline and can sleep on things and pander to Muslims, women, wokes, LGBTQ etc.

We are effed.

fireinthehole said:

---

The courts are not the arbiters of what constitutes an emergency.

---

That's great. Not what the court said in this case.

ibttrade-offs

infinity ag said:

---

fireinthehole said:

---

The courts are not the arbiters of what constitutes an emergency.

---

If this is our system, it is terribly flawed and no wonder everyone is gaming us.

Our country was designed for 1776AD. Not 2026AD. Things happen in realtime now, not horse and buggy speed.

The President must be given more powers to figure out what is emergency and take action. Not wait for Congress which has its own timeline and can sleep on things and pander to Muslims, women, wokes, LGBTQ etc.

We are effed.

---

If only there were a way to amend that document.
ETA: The executive branch needs less power, not more. That would also require Congress to do their job instead of preening for the camera all the time and playing gotcha on social media.

infinity ag said:

---

Our own laws will be the end of us.
Everyone else does as they please and our own Constt prevents us from retaliating.

---

I thought we liked the constitution

Saxsoon said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Our own laws will be the end of us.
Everyone else does as they please and our own Constt prevents us from retaliating.

---

I thought we liked the constitution

---

Who is "we"?
Nothing is perfect. Everything can be improved.

HTownAg98 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

fireinthehole said:

---

The courts are not the arbiters of what constitutes an emergency.

---

If this is our system, it is terribly flawed and no wonder everyone is gaming us.

Our country was designed for 1776AD. Not 2026AD. Things happen in realtime now, not horse and buggy speed.

The President must be given more powers to figure out what is emergency and take action. Not wait for Congress which has its own timeline and can sleep on things and pander to Muslims, women, wokes, LGBTQ etc.

We are effed.

---

If only there were a way to amend that document.
ETA: The executive branch needs less power, not more. That would also require Congress to do their job instead of preening for the camera all the time and playing gotcha on social media.

---

Yes, we will all be dead before that happens. Which is why I think our country is screwed and foreigners know our Achilles heel.

Saxsoon said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Our own laws will be the end of us.
Everyone else does as they please and our own Constt prevents us from retaliating.

---

I thought we liked the constitution

---

Too many people like the Constitution when it fits there desired outcome at the time just like they like judicial decisions that also fit what they want and hate them when they don't.

On page 1 of Texags we have two examples. The judiciary is overreaching with comments on this thread but they are doing a great job by striking down the Virginia redistricting case. Imagine the reaction if courts struck down Texas's or Florida's redistricting.

While there are times I agree our Constitution creates issues, it is the core document that has made the USA the best country in the world to this point and will continue to keep us that way as long as we follow it. The best part of the document is checks and balances which means things happen that I don't like but I accept it as a cost to have the American way.

Our country needs to respond to anti competitive behavior in countries like China without having to go through congress. For example, China can peg the Yuan to the dollar, or implement schemes like PIPL and the US must retaliate immediately. There's a reason it's called a trade WAR and the President should have the power to wage a trade war without confessional approval just like a kinetic war.

The real issue is that congress is useless and have given up on legislating decades ago. If congress had the welfare of the American people at heart, this wouldn't even be an issue.

I wouldn't say it's about handing over every advantage of foreign countries. It's all about trying to limit any possible positivity, production, accomplishment, that President Trump and his administration. Could achieve.

Any other president in history, could do all these things and any and no Judge would bat an eye.

The Constitution was written under the assumption that Congress would use the power they were given instead of sitting around watching their stocks go up.

Quote:

---

On page 1 of Texags we have two examples. The judiciary is overreaching with comments on this thread but they are doing a great job by striking down the Virginia redistricting case. Imagine the reaction if courts struck down Texas's or Florida's redistricting.

---

That has been going on for years. because of the VRA, federal courts were involved. Federal statute grants federal question jurisdiction. Got it? That is precisely how we ended up with the Callais decision.

What was going on in Virginia with the voter referendum changing the state constitution is a state matter. It can only become a federal matter if the state supreme court somehow runs afoul of a federal statute or the federal Constitution.

It is not hypocrisy, it is because of how the Constitution and our laws work in different situations and settings. Which courts have jurisdiction and which courts do not.

fireinthehole said:

---

The courts are not the arbiters of what constitutes an emergency.

---

Pretty sure the emergency question was in their decision

All ideological. Leftist judges care nothing about the constitution, the rule of law, etc. The only thing that matters to them is stop literal Hitler.

zag213004 said:

---

From what I read the ruling was due the Trump admin did not provide concrete evidence that the basis of section 122 could be applied. in the courts opinion the State conflated the trade deficit with the balance of payments requirement to legally use this section of the 1974 act. They are different (don't ask me how, I don't have time to dive even deeper). When presented with the full scope of what makes up the balance of payments court found that there was not such an emergency with these balance of payments that justified the use of this section 122.

It will be appealed and it will be interesting to see how the court of appeals views this. The State is already on the hook for repaying the other tariffs, now they have to pay back the plaintiffs in this case and in July will have to refund those subjected to tariffs under this provision after that date.

---

There it is. I do not believe the constitution intended to protect foreign traders that take advantage of us. How absurd. I think this decision gets over turned. Our entire federal budget was funded by tariffs before income theft, I mean tax.

They certainly didn't, that's why they gave Congress "power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises…"
But in this instance, a balance of payment deficit and a trade deficit are not the same thing.

And when congress does not do their job and an emergency thereby ensues, the emergency powers of the executive kick in. As I stated, I am pretty sure this decision gets over turned. We have to stop knee capping our country by liberals, corporations and foreign powers usurping the powers of our duly elected president.

fireinthehole said:

---

The courts are not the arbiters of what constitutes an emergency.

---

Do you think the Supreme Court erred in overturning Biden's emergency declaration to cancel student debt?