Althouse: Listen to the live Supreme Court argument in the tariffs case.

November 5, 2025

Listen to the live Supreme Court argument in the tariffs case.

Here, now.

107 comments:

Achilles said...: I have to work. Look forward to the transcript.

Curious how the globalists are going to try to get around decades of precedent.; 11/5/25, 9:10 AM
Dave Begley said...: I bet $100 on Kalshi that Trump wins this case.; 11/5/25, 9:15 AM
mccullough said...: Another case about Congress handing over its power to the President instead of the Supreme Court.

Separation of powers died a long time ago.; 11/5/25, 9:26 AM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: If a President can use emergency powers to impose taxes, where does that end? What is the limiting principle?; 11/5/25, 9:38 AM
Sweetie said...: The lawyer industry will surely shine today /s; 11/5/25, 10:01 AM
Wince said...: Left Bank of the Charles said...
If a President can use emergency powers to impose taxes, where does that end? What is the limiting principle?

When it applies to the exercise of foreign policy and specifically negotiating trade agreements, perhaps.; 11/5/25, 10:14 AM
Kakistocracy said...: Court conservatives suddenly worried about the expansion of executive power for the first time this century.

Gorsuch: “So congress as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president.. one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives.”; 11/5/25, 10:20 AM
Howard said...: When did Martin Scorsese become US Solicitor General?; 11/5/25, 10:23 AM
Kakistocracy said...: Justice Gorsuch throws fastballs about the ramifications of Trump's position:

He asks what would happen if Congress said: "We're tired of this legislating business. We're just going to hand this all to the president. What stops them from doing it?"

In his line of questioning, Gorsuch points out that it would take a veto-proof supermajority for Congress to get its power back once it has been handed to the executive.

We’ll see what happens once the lawyers challenging the tariffs take a swing, but so far, this is looking like a bloodbath against Trump's tariffs.; 11/5/25, 10:25 AM
Howard said...: In some ways this is a nuclear option like the cancellation of the filibuster rule in the Senate. Right now you are happy to give these powers to president Trump. Will you still be happy when someone like Gavin Newscum is able to wield such unreviewable and unbridled authority?; 11/5/25, 10:25 AM
rehajm said...: I’m not listening but took a look at the SCOTUSBlog coverage. They’re garnering a big ignorant audience, looking like people going for the dopamine hit of a Trump loss. ‘We NEED a quick decision!!’ ‘What’s the record for quick turnaround by SCOTUS?’ …bah!; 11/5/25, 10:28 AM
narciso said...: Well its the scotus blog from the bulwinkle people; 11/5/25, 10:34 AM
rehajm said...: yah they must have a link to the live blog over there; 11/5/25, 10:48 AM
Breezy said...: If Congress truly wants their power back, they can collect a supermajority to do so, regardless of who the President is.; 11/5/25, 10:56 AM
Inga said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/5/25, 11:05 AM
Inga said...: What a mess it will be if and when the SC rules against Trump’s tariff scheme. The Treasury would be scrambling to give at least half of the tariff money back to the importers. Trump created a shit show and now the Country is having to clean it up. Republicans in Congress should be ashamed to have given the Executive their powers under the Constitution; 11/5/25, 11:06 AM
Breezy said...: The law that Trump relies on, IEEPA, was passed in late 1977 virtually unanimously, and signed by Carter. This was a power given to the President by both parties and signed by Democrat President.

Grok:
Voting on IEEPA: The bill (S. 2412) passed the Senate unanimously (voice vote) on July 27, 1977, and the House by a vote of 401–2 on December 13, 1977. It then went to conference and was approved by both chambers in late December before presidential signature. The overwhelming bipartisan support aligned with the lopsided Democratic majorities.; 11/5/25, 11:17 AM
Gerda Sprinchorn said...: Thanks for the link. Very interesting.; 11/5/25, 11:28 AM
mccullough said...: Who cares if it was Bi-Partisan. Most stupid shit is.

The Supreme Court long ago rejected to Congress delegating its power to the President and the Administrative State, which long ago became The Fourth Branch of the federal government.

The Court should have said that Congress can create administrative agencies to enforce the law and to recommend laws. But Congress has to enact the law.

Trump’s best argument here is that tariffs are part of foreign relations, not just foreign commerce, and the President has exclusive authority over foreign relations in the Constitution.; 11/5/25, 11:31 AM
Inga said...: Why has no other president used IEEPA to impose tariffs on a broad basis the way Trump did?; 11/5/25, 11:32 AM
Gerda Sprinchorn said...: Plaintiff's attorney in trouble late in the game. He admits that IEEPA gives the President the power to shut down all trade with every other country (via the licensing power in IEPPA). But earlier, the same attorney was arguing that Trump's tariffs are way bigger than what Congress meant to authorize.

Looks like Plaintiffs will have to rely on the argument that the current "emergency" isn't really an emergency in the sense IEPPA intended. I find this argument much more more convincing.; 11/5/25, 11:33 AM
Gerda Sprinchorn said...: Further, IEPPA allows "regulation" of international trade. The interstate regulation clause of the Constitution has been stretched to permit almost any action by the Federal Government, so this is a problem for Plaintiffs too.; 11/5/25, 11:34 AM
Gerda Sprinchorn said...: The Justices seem to really be focusing on the shut-down-trade-to-the-rest-of-the-world point.; 11/5/25, 11:35 AM
AMDG said...: mccullough said...
Who cares if it was Bi-Partisan. Most stupid shit is.

The Supreme Court long ago rejected to Congress delegating its power to the President and the Administrative State, which long ago became The Fourth Branch of the federal government.

The Court should have said that Congress can create administrative agencies to enforce the law and to recommend laws. But Congress has to enact the law.

Trump’s best argument here is that tariffs are part of foreign relations, not just foreign commerce, and the President has exclusive authority over foreign relations in the Constitution.

11/5/25, 11:31 AM

———————————————-

Tariffs assessed to the importer, not the exporter so how is that part of foreign relations?; 11/5/25, 11:37 AM
Gerda Sprinchorn said...: Plaintiff's attorney keeps saying "tariffing" is different than regulation. Some other Justices are trying to support this argument.; 11/5/25, 11:39 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Screw Scotusblog. Listen directly from the court here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx; 11/5/25, 11:41 AM
Gerda Sprinchorn said...: Sounds like each side on the Court has enough grounds to rule they way they wanted to going in.; 11/5/25, 11:42 AM
Big Mike said...: Dick Cheney and George W. Bush preferred to fight wars with cruise missiles and smart bombs. Trump prefers to fight them using American economic power before they erupt into shooting wars. I like Trump’s approach better. Wars get to be expensive, especially when you try to fight them with peacetime admirals and generals.; 11/5/25, 11:43 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Why has no other president used IEEPA to impose tariffs on a broad basis the way Trump did?

They were afraid of China, unlike Trump. Trump recognized that the rest of the world could and would pay a premium of 15% or so to sell goods to the USA. Other presidents have used similar schemes, like Nixon's across-the-board 10% tariff but that was pre-IEEPA yet it stood too.

However, the punitive tariffs wielded in response to EU protectionism and Canada intransigence may be at risk. Other presidents, especially Obama and Biden far undervalued America. Trump saw that the non-tariff trade barriers the rest of the world uses could be our reciprocal answer to VAT. He was right. Despite an average of 15% imposed, imports only rose about 1% in cost to US consumers.; 11/5/25, 11:47 AM
Breezy said...: The gist of the plaintiff argument is that tariffs raise revenue. They may do so, but they encourage both domestic and foreign sellers and buyers to avoid paying anything. To do that, they need to manufacture in the US, and buy US products. In the end, the tariff is a carrot and a stick to re-balance trade to favor US, where we’ve been on the short side for decades.

Other presidents didn’t fight for or make better trade deals for the US some reason.; 11/5/25, 11:53 AM
Inga said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/5/25, 11:56 AM
Inga said...: “They were afraid of China, unlike Trump.’

LOL. And what has Trump’s trade war with China accomplished? Farmers going broke because China isn’t buying soybeans at the rate it did under other presidents? Americans are paying a lot more for goods imported from China in a time when groceries are almost unaffordable.; 11/5/25, 11:57 AM
Peachy said...: I agree with what Trump is doing.

Congress will never get it done. You can find past Democratic statements from people like Schumer admitting that tariffs are unfair and unbalanced. That said - democrats prefer to tax US citizens first, second, third, ... A-z last and up the wazoo.; 11/5/25, 12:11 PM
Peachy said...: Screw China and the sell-out Dems who profited mightily off of out-sourcing our labor and manufacturing base and markets to China.. We need to bring all that manufacturing back to the US.
Leftists whine - no matter what - but were dead silent after Biden's actions and money printing kicked inflation into the stratosphere.; 11/5/25, 12:15 PM
Inga said...: “That said - democrats prefer to tax US citizens first, second, third…”

And just WHO do you think are paying for these tariffs? You think the importers will just eat the tariffs without passing it along to America buyers? Oh brother…; 11/5/25, 12:23 PM
Peachy said...: Inag - the goal of Trump was to remove the Tariffs WE were paying and level the playing field.; 11/5/25, 12:26 PM
Kevin said...: Why has no other president used IEEPA to impose tariffs on a broad basis the way Trump did?

Because the globalists taught past Presidents it didn't matter if your country made potato chips or computer chips.; 11/5/25, 12:26 PM
narciso said...: The dilemma has been long in coming; 11/5/25, 12:27 PM
Kevin said...: And just WHO do you think are paying for these tariffs? You think the importers will just eat the tariffs without passing it along to America buyers? Oh brother…

You think Americans pay 100% of the tariffs? Oh brother...; 11/5/25, 12:27 PM
Dave Begley said...: The conventional wisdom is that oral argument doesn't matter that much. I agree.

I didn't do a very good job in my last NE S. Ct case, but I won anyway.; 11/5/25, 12:29 PM
Leland said...: Why has no other president used IEEPA to impose tariffs on a broad basis the way Trump did?

Does "broad basis" mean something to you? Because I don't know what it means in regards to the law, and if you take it out: "Why has no other president used IEEPA to impose tariffs the way Trump did?" Answer: They have.; 11/5/25, 12:29 PM
Kakistocracy said...: Betting market odds for SCOTUS letting Trump keep his tariffs have tanked.; 11/5/25, 12:29 PM
narciso said...: They ask stupid questions?; 11/5/25, 12:31 PM
Kakistocracy said...: I’ll go out on a limb here:

SCOTUS rules 7-2 against Trump on IEEPA tariffs

Majority opinion by Roberts, Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson

Separate concurring opinions from Gorsuch, Kavanaugh

Thomas, Alito dissent

Refund process will be somewhat convoluted.; 11/5/25, 12:31 PM
Kevin said...: Betting market odds for SCOTUS letting Trump keep his tariffs have tanked.

I don't think SCOTUS should get into the business of defining what is and isn't an "emergency". Better to let Congress do that, even if it requires a supermajority.; 11/5/25, 12:34 PM
Steven said...: It appears that the supreme court will affirm the American people's right to engage commerce, unless their representatives in the congress consent to restrictions. I am glad to see it.

It is also gratifying to see the left suddenly become big proponents of free trade. I hope this will lead to an era of libertarian comity when the Republicans tire of the magas' lawlessness.; 11/5/25, 12:35 PM
Kakistocracy said...: It’s like Sauer thinks saying “It’s a regulatory tariff not a tax” is a get out of jail free card, and the justices ain’t having it. Makes listening to Sauer’s voice and incoherent rambling so worth it.; 11/5/25, 12:38 PM
Inga said...: “You think Americans pay 100% of the tariffs? Oh brother...”

“The percentage of tariffs that importers pass along to buyers varies, but recent studies from 2025 indicate that the pass-through rate to U.S. consumers is typically between 60% and 80%, and in some cases is expected to be nearly 100% over time.”

Gemini; 11/5/25, 12:39 PM
Inga said...: “Refund process will be somewhat convoluted.”

Yes, thanks to Trump and a cowardly Republican Party.; 11/5/25, 12:42 PM
n.n said...: Tariffs compensate for labor and environmental arbitrage that provide incentives for outsourcing, insourcing, Green deals, immigration reform, and planned parenthood.; 11/5/25, 12:45 PM
DINKY DAU 45 said...: On a wagering upswing I see
SCOTUS upholds lower court rulings (tariffs overturned) Moderate to High Refunds, price drops, trade reset
SCOTUS partially overturns (some tariffs remain) Moderate Mixed relief, selective refunds, I am wagering on 58% of situation #1 More likely, I am wagering 73% on situation #2 at 22-1 Mixed relief with moderate payback and minimum relief from trumps biggest Republican tax raise on the American people EVER? Its never over thoughwith the trump in the tank SCOTUS so more to be revealed. Neil Katyal (however you spell that) is a master craftsman,the other guy has a grating, whiny voice that alone should exclude his rhetoric. 3 lower courts all deemed illegal,SCOTUS AGREES in these numbers.This whole deal is BEAUCOUP DINKY DAU!; 11/5/25, 12:45 PM
Dave Begley said...: All you people making predictions about this case can go to the prediction markets (e.g. Kalshi) and place your money bets.; 11/5/25, 12:47 PM
Dave Begley said...: Trump's chance of winning tanked to 29% after the oral argument.; 11/5/25, 12:48 PM
narciso said...: Katyal who let bin ladens go free; 11/5/25, 12:49 PM
Wince said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/5/25, 12:54 PM
rehajm said...: ..all so much fun but critical of you for losing sight of why tariffs are there- because foreign markets are closed to us makers or there are tariffs or quotas on foreigners import of us goods. To squee get Trump forgets that these arrangements
harms Americans…; 11/5/25, 12:57 PM
Yancey Ward said...: "Will you still be happy when someone like Gavin Newscum is able to wield such unreviewable and unbridled authority?"

No, I would not be happy but I suspect even if SCOTUS kills this tariff power as an illegitimate delegation of congressional authority, the Democrats will just endorse such taxing power when they are in power again by simply packing the court with enough justices to rule it legitimate in the future. What you really need is a constitutional amendment that declares that Congress and only Congress can add and raise all revenues and that Congress must pass these revenue measures every single fiscal year for all taxes, new and old.; 11/5/25, 1:00 PM
Wince said...: Kakistocracy said...
Justice Gorsuch throws fastballs about the ramifications of Trump's position... In his line of questioning, Gorsuch points out that it would take a veto-proof supermajority for Congress to get its power back once it has been handed to the executive.

Okay. But that supermajority hurdle applies to all aspects of the IEEPA, not just as tariffs, doesn't it? And all statutory law for that matter.

Hence, I don't see that argument raised by Gorsuch's question being dispositive as to whether there's a constitutional limit on the ability of congress to delegate its authority to the president to impose tariffs under the IEEPA.

For that reason, I suspect the outcome of this case will likely be decided based on statutory interpretation of "emergency" and its scope under the IEEPA, rather than constitutional separation of powers.; 11/5/25, 1:01 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/5/25, 1:03 PM
Dave Begley said...: Correction: Trump's chance of winning tanked to 39% after oral argument.; 11/5/25, 1:06 PM
Wince said...: The scope of "emergency" will be defined by SCOTUS and there will be no refunds of tariffs.; 11/5/25, 1:07 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Dave Begley (12:48pm):
Do we trust the prediction markets? Aren't they easily manipulated? I haven't been watching, but 'unseen1' on Twitter has, and here's his conclusion. Everything that follows is him, not me (link):

- - - - - - - - - - -

Final thoughts on the oral arguments. The only justice that was 100% for the opposition was Justice Jackson. Both Kagan and Sotomayor had some moments where they agreed with Trump's case. Sotomayor is probably a firm, no though. Kagan, I'm not sure. It's probably a no also.

Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas all are a firm, yes.

Roberts was pretty neutral and could go either way.

Barrett and Gorsuch started leaning as a no, but the opposition arguments were so bad that by the end, I think both were leaning towards yes.

So I could see any outcome for a yes from 8-2 to 5-4.

If they do rule against Trump, I can't see it as more than a 6-3 decision and most likely a 5-4.

If I had to make a bet, it would be in Trump's favor and a 6-3, but it's important to note that this case isn't just about the merits of the case. There are a lot of politics and $$trillions at stake, so it's really anyone's guess at this point what the final decision will be. Im sure the trump admin is making plans for either decision, and I doubt the case will stop him if they rule against him.

He could simply place sanctions on the world and stop all trade. Seriously, knowing what type of power he has at his disposal, I doubt they really want to rock the boat and throw away peace deals, trade deals, and plunge the country into 2+ trillion deficits again.

This case isn't really about Trump. It's about America's position in the world and the powers between the exec and congressional branches and which branch controls foreign affairs. Congress has a way to solve the issue, so the court will probably punt it to them.; 11/5/25, 1:08 PM
Wince said...: Dave Begley said...
Correction: Trump's chance of winning tanked to 39% after oral argument.

There is no dichotomous "win-lose" if SCOTUS treats the matter as one of statutory interpretation and splits the baby.; 11/5/25, 1:09 PM
Yancey Ward said...: In other words, Democrats would be completely happy to grant a President the power to tax carbon from all sources outside the U.S. There are few intellectually honest people on this issue. Had Joe Biden declared a climate emergency and used tarriffs to tax China's carbon inputs to their exports to the U.S., you would find the political parties on opposite sides of this case.

With that out of the way, I have long thought Trump is going to lose this case as an illegitimate delegation of power by Congress. I think that is exactly what the majority will write as a decision but it will be a majority in which the 3 Democrats write a separate opinion that Trump's emergency declaration doesn't fit the law and the Republican justices overturn the ability to raise taxes on an emergency basis altogether.; 11/5/25, 1:10 PM
Dr Weevil said...: Then again, 'unseen1' is a smart guy, but not perfect: I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that the result will not be 8-2 for Trump, but I don't think the betting markets will allow me to do that. Whether he meant 8-1 or 7-2, I don't know.; 11/5/25, 1:11 PM
hanuman_prodigious_leaper said...: who was allowed to 'standing' in SC for this?; 11/5/25, 1:18 PM
Christopher B said...: Does the President have a similar power regarding immigration? Because I can't see much of a difference between interpreting 'emergency' in this case and 'asylum' in such a way as to let 10 million people cross the border.; 11/5/25, 1:30 PM
rehajm said...: Wake me when the supremes rule discrimination on the basis if race is indeed racial discrimination…; 11/5/25, 1:35 PM
Aaron said...: Be aware that in the 90's trade deals included not allowing governments to try to push sectors and protect their own industries. China didn't give a shit and did exactly this. They made their own protected versions of our tech and they have a list of priority industries to build up to stop imports.

So, if you're pro-free trade this should make China not acceptable as a trade partner. Not to mention their currency not being freely traded.; 11/5/25, 1:49 PM
Aaron said...: Choose a raw material and see who the top 10 suppliers are in China. 6/10 will be state run industries. This isn't allowed for free trade. Subdisized raw materials, artificially weak currency, massive subsidies for sectors designed to remove foreign supply. If you're a free trader this should shock you, but instead they just suck it up.

Maybe it wouldn't matter if we were a small country.; 11/5/25, 1:53 PM
MountainMan said...: "Tariffs assessed to the importer, not the exporter so how is that part of foreign relations?"

Who actually pays the tariff is determined by what are known as "INCOTERMS", terms of sale established by the International Chamber of Commerce. There are 11 such terms, with 4 specifically applying only to ocean freight. The tariff could be paid by the seller, or by the customer, depending on what they they have agreed as to how the product will be moved, where risk transfers from the seller to the buyer, who insures that risk, and who clears the product for import and pays any duty that is owed at the destination. One extreme is "EXW - {origin}" meaning "Ex works at the point of origin" where the seller makes the product, puts it on his dock, and you the buyer are fully responsible to arrange all carriage, assume all risk, insure it, and clear customs and pay duty, if necessary. The other extreme is "DDP - {destination}," where the seller quotes the buyer a single price for the product and that price includes all carriage and insurance, paying duty and clearing customs, and delivering to your doorstep ready for your use, with the seller assuming all risk for the entire journey. All the other INCOTERMS are variations on these, where ownership/risk transfers at particular points in the journey and the costs being split appropriately.

How the duty could affect the price to the final consumer in the in-country supply chain can get complicated. The seller could recover the cost of the duty in the price, or could choose to just eat it and take a hit on margin in order not to lose market share to a competitor. For the buyer, the duty could get diluted to where it is not significant to the final market price, or he could just eat it as well to protect market share, or he could pass it along.; 11/5/25, 1:59 PM
Aaron said...: I'm in the import business. Most trade with China has now become DDP.

Why?

Because if they cheat on tariffs, we can't actually arrest or prosecute them.; 11/5/25, 2:06 PM
Aaron said...: Prior to tariffs, trade was mostly done FOB. Where the importer pays.; 11/5/25, 2:07 PM
Aaron said...: How do they cheat? They undervalue the product on their invoices to customs. I have reported this to Customs for a very large Chinese company and...NOTHING HAPPENED.

Our government must be staffed by people counting down the days to pension and not interested in busting law breakers.; 11/5/25, 2:09 PM
boatbuilder said...: Hence, I don't see that argument raised by Gorsuch's question being dispositive as to whether there's a constitutional limit on the ability of congress to delegate its authority to the president to impose tariffs under the IEEPA.
I agree. Where in the Constitution does the Supreme Court get the authority to "correct" a "mistake" by Congress? The fact that once Congress delegates it is procedurally difficult for it to claw back that delegation does not mean that the Court has the authority to change the legislation.; 11/5/25, 2:18 PM
boatbuilder said...: Oh, Hell. fix; 11/5/25, 2:18 PM
D.D. Driver said...: "Will you still be happy when someone like Gavin Newscum is able to wield such unreviewable and unbridled authority?"

300% tariffs on petroleum products because we have a climate "emergency." Because "emergency" (like the words "necessary and proper") just means whatever some politician wants it to mean. Just like "insurrectionist." Meaningless. All of these words mean the same thing: whatever is "convenient or useful." See McCulloch v. Maryland.; 11/5/25, 2:19 PM
Dave Begley said...: It seems to me that any reasonable person would agree that if the President can take action and stop 100,000 fentanyl deaths per year (or at least cut that number back), he should be allowed to do so. I think the parents of the dead would agree that the US is facing an emergency.; 11/5/25, 2:26 PM
Beasts of England said...: ’And just WHO do you think are paying for these tariffs?’

Inga displays her complete lack of knowledge, re: the elasticity of demand. lol

p.s., AI can only regurgitate historical trends of tariff elasticity, not the present circumstances. Fail.; 11/5/25, 2:33 PM
Beasts of England said...: Italiacto; 11/5/25, 2:34 PM
bagoh20 said...: "300% tariffs on petroleum products because we have a climate "emergency."

So we agree that Democrats are so batshit crazy that they should never be given power.

Trump tries to save thousands of American lives and jobs, and the Democrat equivalent would be to destroy the American economy and impoverish us all.

Yea, that sounds about right.; 11/5/25, 3:05 PM
Kakistocracy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/5/25, 3:06 PM
D.D. Driver said...: "It seems to me that any reasonable person would agree that if the President can take action and stop 100,000 fentanyl deaths per year."

No. A very stupid person would take the statistic that tariffs will stop 100,000 deaths at face value. Just like other stupid fucking people believe that the ice caps will be gone (in just 10 years if we don't at now!) Just like other stupid people will believe that you have to inject adolescents with sex hormones to prevent them from killing themselves. Derp.

Politicians are full of shit. Even the ones you like.

A "reasonable" conservative wants the executive to follow the law. Period. The President doesn't get to break the law if its "important enough." That used to be a dividing line between conservatives and proggies. Conservatives used to say that if you don't like the law, you should work to change it. Progressives were the ones that believed that you can ignore laws you don't like because their cause so righteous the need to bring it forth "by any means necessary."; 11/5/25, 3:07 PM
D.D. Driver said...: "So we agree that Democrats are so batshit crazy that they should never be given power."

Agree. Trump is just ad batshit though. Whomp whomp.

Derp.; 11/5/25, 3:08 PM
Kakistocracy said...: The question before the Supreme Court is wider than the president's right to impose tariffs on any and all countries as he chooses; it is whether he is able to do as he wishes without the application of prior legal structure.

Sounds like the more intelligent Justices like Roberts and Gorsuch (who have often been craven to Trump) are now aware that a future Democrat president could use executive powers to do things they wouldn’t like.

Law is one thing — Trump is another.
If he loses this case then his remaining years will be devoted to using it as an excuse for why his magic beans didn’t grow.; 11/5/25, 3:08 PM
Achilles said...: Howard said...

In some ways this is a nuclear option like the cancellation of the filibuster rule in the Senate. Right now you are happy to give these powers to president Trump. Will you still be happy when someone like Gavin Newscum is able to wield such unreviewable and unbridled authority?

The problem is that the court never seems to figure this out unless it is a republican president.

More specifically a Republican President that wants the Globalist Corporate Oligarchs to pay taxes for once.; 11/5/25, 3:19 PM
Achilles said...: Inga said...

“That said - democrats prefer to tax US citizens first, second, third…”

And just WHO do you think are paying for these tariffs? You think the importers will just eat the tariffs without passing it along to America buyers? Oh brother

Mostly Giant corporations that build things in other countries.

Even a retard like you should be able to figure that out.; 11/5/25, 3:23 PM
Achilles said...: Inga is mad that Giant multinational Corporations have to pass taxes on to the American consumer.

Inga thinks Trump gave tax breaks only to the rich who happened to be Americans.

Yes she makes both arguments without a hint of awareness. You have to be this stupid to be a democrat now.; 11/5/25, 3:25 PM
Achilles said...: mccullough said...

Another case about Congress handing over its power to the President instead of the Supreme Court.

Separation of powers died a long time ago

Bingo.

And now the Supreme Court will show everyone what Supreme means because Separation or Powers was always meant to be 9 unelected pharisees will determine what the government does or does not do.; 11/5/25, 3:30 PM
Rocco said...: D.D. Driver said...
"So we agree that Democrats are so batshit crazy that they should never be given power.

Agree. Trump is just as batshit, though. Whomp whomp.”

So you’ve established the reasonable premises that:
- The Democrats are batshit crazy.
- Trump is batshit crazy.

Therefore, logic dictates that, if you vote in the next election, you should vote for JD Vance.; 11/5/25, 3:30 PM
narciso said...: The laws been around for nearly 50 years; 11/5/25, 3:34 PM
D.D. Driver said...: "The laws been around for nearly 50 years."

So was Roe v. Wade. What's your point?; 11/5/25, 3:51 PM
D.D. Driver said...: "Therefore, logic dictates that, if you vote in the next election, you should vote for JD Vance."

I really liked Vance about a year ago but he has pissed away any goodwill he once had.; 11/5/25, 3:53 PM
boatbuilder said...: If we elect Newsome 300 percent tariffs on oil will be the least of our problems.; 11/5/25, 4:19 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Don't waste you time with D.D. Driver- his ideal Republican candidate in 2028 is going to be a Democrat.; 11/5/25, 4:28 PM
Kakistocracy said...: The executive has a vested interest in mudding this case — at its simplest it is about executive overreach. This administration was always free to pursue a tariff strategy, through Congress. That it is failing to do so, is legitimately calling into question the basis of the separation of powers that underpins the Republic.; 11/5/25, 4:46 PM
narciso said...: Argument clinic; 11/5/25, 4:48 PM
Jim at said...: Once again, Inga opines on a subject of which she knows nothing.; 11/5/25, 4:55 PM
narciso said...: Day ending in y; 11/5/25, 4:56 PM
Wince said...: In his line of questioning, Gorsuch points out that it would take a veto-proof supermajority for Congress to get its power back once it has been handed to the executive.

I'm not sure Gorsuch actually believes in such a romantic, Schoolhouse Rock view of how the sausage is made in Washington DC.

If they wanted to, couldn't Congress by-pass such procedural niceties like they usually do by attaching a claw-back of its tariff authority in one of those "dirty" continuing resolutions or Omnibus budget bills without requiring a clean, up-or-down veto-proof two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate? Thereby putting a figurative gun to the president's head.; 11/5/25, 5:05 PM
Kakistocracy said...: Trump's argument regarding foreign policy and emergencies are used because the Supreme Court grants the president wide authority to conduct foreign policy which is provided to the executive branch under the Constitution. However, the Constitution give Congress the authority to conduct foreign commerce, including foreign trade and the power to raise revenue, including tariffs.

The two Supreme Court principles that prevent a president from usurping Congressional authority are the "major questions doctrine" which the Supreme Court uses to prevent a president from making major changes based on vague wording in a statute or loophole unless explicitly stated in the statute. They employed that to deny Biden from cancelling student debt a couple years ago, for example.

The other is the 'nondelegation doctrine' which prevents one branch of government from delegating its authority under the Constitution to another branch of government. This may permit limited exceptions, for example Congress might be permitted to grant the president authority to enact tariffs up to 15% for 90 days under an emergency provision. But that's about it.; 11/5/25, 5:25 PM
Kakistocracy said...: The Supreme Court will rule against Trump's perceived authority to raise tariffs under the IEEPA, that seems abundantly clear from the oral arguments today.

There are a few key principles at play.

First, the statute itself does not reference giving the president the ability to raise tariffs, taxes, or duties. It talks of regulation via embargo, license and other more draconian measures you might expect a country to impose in a real emergency or outbreak of war, for example. The power to raise revenue is given to Congress, not the president, under the Constitution.

Second, even if the statute could be interpreted as providing the executive branch with tariff raising powers, the wording is not explicit and well defined and therefore the president using this as a basis to make huge changes violates what is known as the "major questions doctrine" the Supreme Court employs to prevent the executive branch from usurping authority for major policy changes via technical loopholes or otherwise vague language.

Third, there is also something known as the 'nondelegation doctrine' which, if the Court decided that the statute did in fact give the executive branch unlimited power to raise tariffs, this would violate the Constitution by delegating a core power of Congress to the executive branch which is not permissible.

One or more of the above are of concern to all the justices, not just the liberal ones. In some ways the conservatives may have at least as many issues as the liberals in this case.

It was not a contentious hearing between justices, which court watchers suggest means the justices are essentially agreed on the ruling on the case. Justice Alito, one of the most conservative judges, also raised the question of the court ruling more broadly on presidential authority on tariffs under other statutes as well, suggesting the court might also include a concurrent opinion that denies or limits executive authority to raise tariffs under any statute.; 11/5/25, 5:37 PM
Kevin said...: “The percentage of tariffs that importers pass along to buyers varies, but recent studies from 2025 indicate that the pass-through rate to U.S. consumers is typically between 60% and 80%, and in some cases is expected to be nearly 100% over time.”

So even by your best source its not 100%.; 11/5/25, 8:20 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Steven,

> It is also gratifying to see the left suddenly
> become big proponents of free trade

You can't possibly believe that they sincerely mean this.

Can you?

Can you???; 11/5/25, 8:26 PM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: LOL “Free Trade.” Let’s just run it on the honor system then. Everyone plays fair right?; 11/6/25, 4:01 AM
Breezy said...: It’s not clear to me which way SCOTUS will decide this one. The IEEPA allows that “the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise -“

That word “otherwise” is not narrowed in the Act. SCOTUS could say, oh well, a vague Act begets wide interpretation, so be it. Or it could hand it back to Congress to clarify.

The tricky thing is the IEEPA has been used extensively by Presidents, so the barn door has been open a while. That Trump was creative enough to use it for wholesale tariffs is unique, but it does not appear on its face to be illegal. Previous Presidents were under the impression that these sorts of tariffs would hurt the economy via inflation. That conventional wisdom has been proven wrong, so far.; 11/6/25, 5:05 AM
Kakistocracy said...: Executive orders can be used in matters where the Constitution has given authority to the Executive branch and not Congress or the Supreme Court.

As a practical matter, the court doesn't try to interpret what is or isn't an emergency, and they recognize that "emergencies" are happening all the time according to presidents past and present. But they do pay close attention to the text of the statute to judge its intent and also the relevant legislative history. They also use the 'major questions doctrine' and 'nondelegation doctrine' to deny executive attempts to usurp power by declaring an emergency.

I suppose because without some legal definition of what constitutes an emergency, the definition is somewhat subjective. Also, if Congress grants the executive emergency powers without defining what constitutes an emergency and what doesn't, they are essentially giving the executive the power to determine what constitutes an emergency.; 11/6/25, 6:10 AM