The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Lawyer close to Trump admits SCOTUS may block tariffs - link
Poast new message in this thread
Date: April 7th, 2025 11:40 AM Author: ,.,,.,.,,,,,,..................... Just like I said. One lawyer quoted predicts 9-0 against Trump, which seems very possible when you consider that the law supports it AND the global economy is literally at stake.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/businesses-conservative-lawyers-planning-legal-challenge-to-trumps-tariffs/ar-AA1Cstwt?ocid=BingNewsSerp |
Date: April 7th, 2025 11:41 AM Author: tarrifs lmao there is ZERO chance 5 SCOTUS members strike down Trump's big, beautiful tariffs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824157) |
 |
Date: April 7th, 2025 11:46 AM Author: ,.,,.,.,,,,,,..................... You should inform the prominent lawyer close to Trump of this revelation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824170) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 11:58 AM Author: tarrifs Something I would happily do if this anonymous prominent lawyer weren't fabricated 🤣 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824217) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 12:28 PM Author: venkatesh (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824341) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 11:51 AM Author: .....;;,,.........;.;.;.;.,;,;,;.;.;,; Bizarre faith in the cucky, GOPe-spawned swing 3 justices, but on top of that Gorsuch’s libertarian schtick will likely make an appearance. 7-2 with a hilariously unhinged Alito dissent sourced directly from Twitter seems likely to me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824183) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 11:41 AM Author: """'"'"""'' Trump is probably hoping they do. then he can say, well I tried my prole fucking loser friends, but the deep state activist judges stopped me! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824158) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 12:09 PM Author: ...,....,,........ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824264) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 12:14 PM (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824275) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 11:42 AM Author: Trade Wars Are Good And Easy To Win lol, this suit may get tossed on standing, much less the substantive issue (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824161) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 11:45 AM Author: ,.,,.,.,,,,,,..................... You obviously don't know standing law. The injury in fact, fairly tracable and redressability requirements are all easily met here if you have a plaintiff like the one in the Florida case who is an importer who will have to pay the tariffs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824169) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 11:51 AM Author: Trade Wars Are Good And Easy To Win I’m sure it’s actually complicated, but SCOTUS will punt to “Congress can fix this.” (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824189) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 12:07 PM Author: The Mercantilist Policy April (No Future) (David Kessler) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824258) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 11:52 AM Author: internet g0y A traeceable injury isn't sufficient. Paying a generally applicable tax isn't enough. You can't sue the government every time it raises gas taxes because you drive a car. Tariffs are just taxes on imports.
Possibly the plaintiff would have standing if a law was violated in implementing the tariffs, which is the track Im sure they will take. But its not a foregone conclusion that there is standing. |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 12:06 PM Author: The Mercantilist Policy April (No Future) I think it's more likely than not that they'll be able to find someone with standing; you're generally right about generally applicable taxes and so on, but the main claim here is this is unconstitutional b/c Congress has Art I authority over tariffs and trade and the limited delegation to the executive for emergency trade action doesn't apply to something like this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824247) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 12:13 PM Author: ,.,,.,.,,,,,,..................... I disagree, and I have seen several prominent lawyers write columns on this, saying the tariffs will be set aside. E.g.
"The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) has just filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of President Trump's new tariffs, Emily Ley Paper, Inc v. Trump (N.D. Fla.), on behalf of plaintiffs who import goods from China and are directly harmed by the unlawful tariff/taxes. The District Court should enter an immediate nationwide injunction suspending the Trump tariffs, and the Supreme Court should hold those tariffs/taxes to be unconstitutional as soon as possible."
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/05/president-trumps-new-tariffs-are-unconstitutional/
So professor Calabresi clearly agrees with me that the Florida plaintiffs' "direct harm" is sufficient to give them standing to challenge the tariff.
But I guess an XO poaster knows better than a Northwestern con law prof. |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 12:16 PM Author: internet g0y You disagree on what basis? You disagree that generally applicable taxes provide standing to the payer of the taxes?
All you did was provide a link to an article about a lawsuit that doesn't discuss standing at all.
|
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 12:17 PM Author: ,.,,.,.,,,,,,..................... The "direct harm" is clearly a reference to standing, and the professor recommends granting the relief sought which, as a con law prof, he clearly knows only could happen if standing exists. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824297) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 12:19 PM Author: internet g0y Your comment above was that the plaintiff had standing because there was a traceable injury. That is necessary but not sufficient. Otherwise anyone paying a gas tax would have standing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824303) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 12:22 PM Author: The Mercantilist Policy April (No Future) The injury is the payment of the tax and the claim would be that the imposition of the tax is in fact illegal--executive only has tariff power given him by Congress, and the major question line of case law suggests the limited emergency trade authority granted him doesn't extend this far. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824316) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 12:27 PM Author: internet g0y I don't disagree. Except that I don't know if the claims that he doesn't have the authority are actually reasonable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824333) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 12:39 PM Author: The Mercantilist Policy April (No Future) I'm not a trade law MFE and most of the analysis I've seen is from people arguing that he doesn't, but certainly the claims he doesn't have authority aren't, you know, frivolous.
Two big cases I can think of are the FDA one (FDA tried to regulate cigarettes on the ground that nicotine was a drug and so it fell within its statutorily delegated authority to regulate) and the recent EPA one (EPA tried to regulate CO2 emissions using Clean Air Act or whatever authority that was intended at regulating actual pollutant emissions like sulfur etc). The argument here would be that Congress only gave limited delegation of tariff authority for flexible executive response to emergencies or similar (such as sanctions against Russia for invading Ukraine or Iran for its nukes), and that the general trade situation doesn't amount to an 'emergency.'
Courts rightly tend to stay out of executive determinations of things like emergencies in the conduct of foreign affairs as being political questions etc., so that weighs in Trump's favor. On the other hand, many of those cases deal with clear executive prerogatives around foreign affairs/war, and not a power that's explicitly in Art I. |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 12:46 PM Author: ....,,,.....,,....,.......,,,...., (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824397) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 12:44 PM Author: Trade Wars Are Good And Easy To Win The odds pretty strong that a practicing lawyer knows more than a Northwestern Con Law Prof with ZERO skin in the game. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824390) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 12:18 PM Author: ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:,.,,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,. SCOTUS already said Trump can't be held accountable for "official acts" so he'll just tell Customs to continue collecting the tariffs no matter what SCOTUS says. The remedy for ignoring SCOTUS is supposed to be impeachment but the GOP congress is too cucked to do anything (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824299) |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 12:51 PM Author: Emotionally + Physically Abusive Ex-Husband Sorry shitcon, they won't save your precious Jewish numbers. The "Major Questions Doctrine" applies only to lib initiatives. It doesn't apply to initiatives designed to make America great. |
|
Date: April 7th, 2025 2:21 PM Author: ,.,.,.,....,.,..,.,.,. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706849&forum_id=2...id.#48824785) |