Lordy be, now we have Trump attacking the conservative Supreme Court because it struck down the tariffs he imposed on nearly every country. I am delighted for two reasons. First, because I always said that if anybody is going to stop Trump, it wound have to be the courts, who have now demonstrated some rare unanimity against his nonsense. It heartens me that the Court, right-wing as it is, can still be rational. Second, I have also argued (along with all rational economists) that tariffs are never good, and in the end it is the consumers who suffer.
The 3 dissenters in the vote were Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas, with the last two predictable.
So now Trump is frothing at the mouth at the court he though he could count on. And it is the Court of Last Resort. Though he swears he will find a way to circumvent this ruling, I do not think he will. Click below to read, or find the article archived here.
At last, some happy political news. An excerpt, and note that the Chief Justice wrote the opinion, as he can reserve that right for himself:
A Supreme Court decision on Friday striking down President Trump’s sweeping global tariffs dealt a major blow to his economic agenda and brought new uncertainty to global markets struggling to adapt to his whipsawing trade policies.
The court, in a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ruled that Mr. Trump had exceeded his authority when he imposed tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner last year. The ruling prompted a defiant response from the president: In a news conference at the White House, he vowed to restore tariffs using other authority and excoriated the justices who had ruled against him as “fools and lap dogs.”
The ruling threw into doubt a series of trade deals with countries around the world that the administration struck in recent months, and left unclear whether U.S. companies or consumers would be able to reclaim some of the more than $200 billion in fees the federal government has collected since the start of last year. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh warned in a dissent that any refund process could be a substantial “mess.”
Mr. Trump was the first president to claim that the 1977 emergency statute, which does not mention the word “tariffs,” allowed him to unilaterally impose the duties without congressional approval. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts said that statute did not. The court’s ruling, backed by justices from across the ideological spectrum, was a rare and significant example of the Supreme Court pushing back on Mr. Trump’s agenda.
A small but vocal group of Republicans in Congress joined Democrats in celebrating the court’s ruling, reflecting frustration that their branch of government has ceded its authority over trade matters to the White House. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and former longtime party leader, said the ruling left “no room for doubt” that Mr. Trump’s circumventing of Congress was “illegal.”
Trump learned the bad news at a meeting in the White House, when an aide passed him a note as he was answering questions:
The ruling, Mr. Trump said, was a “disgrace.” Speaking to a crowd of governors, cabinet officials and White House aides, the president lashed out at the court but insisted that he had a contingency plan.
He took one more question from Gov. Josh Stein of North Carolina, a Democrat, about hurricane assistance, but then ended the meeting early. He wanted to work on his response to the ruling, he said.
For Mr. Trump, the Supreme Court decision was not just a political setback, but a personal one. He has promoted tariffs for decades, and has claimed that his sweeping levies resuscitated the economy and revived American manufacturing.
“Tariff is my favorite word in the whole dictionary,” he said Thursday at an event in Rome, Ga.
Data released on Thursday showed Mr. Trump’s tariffs were not having the effect he had promised they would. U.S. imports grew last year, and the trade deficit in goods hit a record high. U.S. manufacturers have also cut more than 80,000 jobs in the past year.
The administration does have other laws it can rely on to try to re-enact the tariffs, but those laws have procedural constraints and might not allow tariffs as expansive as those struck down by the court.
The emergency-economic law invoked by Trump “was designed to address national security concerns and so was designed for flexibility and speed,” said Everett Eissenstat, deputy director of the National Economic Council in Trump’s first term. “Other statutory authorities are not as flexible.”
The president could also seek explicit authorization from Congress to reimpose the sweeping tariffs, though that route appears politically unlikely.
Where is he gonna go now?
Tariffs can serve a purpose in protecting US industries from foreign government-subsidized products, but of course that’s not what Trump was doing.
I was surprised to discover that foreign imports of goods make up only ten percent of the economy, whereas services comprise 75 percent, so Trump’s tariffs do cause some damage but not disastrously. The greater damage is from the uncertainty, which will continue. There is no predicting what insanity he will engage in next. Invading Iran, it seems.
The US will not invade Iran. We don’t have ground force in the region that are large enough (note, that Saddam invaded Iran and failed). Will the US attack Iran from the air? Not clear either way.
The MAGA crowd at the WSJ has abandoned the comment section, leaving thousands of anti-tariff comments.
Some pointed out that this will help the economy, saving Trump from himself. Unless, of course, he finds a way around it.
The Free Press jumps in with advice on how to get around the ruling.
https://www.thefp.com/p/trumps-tariffs-are-downbut-not-out
Trump today: “Absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country. I’d like to thank and congratulate justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country, which is right now very proud of those justices…The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no. They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices. They’re an automatic no matter how good a case you have. It said no. They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.”
He and Vance, who also trashed the Supremes, are dangerous.
Rebuke the fucker(s)! Even though it’s dangerous, like cornering a predator. It’s really the only way forward. Nice guys finish last when dealing with an authoritarian malignant narcissist like Trump.
The biggest crush is to Trump’s ego. He can no longer throw America’s weight around and call it his own. That burns him to the tiny little core he has.
By “rebuke” I gather you mean “impeach”, right? What other rebuking mechanism is there?
Well, sure, Impeach the fucker! Thanks for the clarification.
I think you know what I meant though…
Rebuke is a good word for the masses…and that is happening
The masses don’t impeach, though. The President isn’t responsible to the masses. I just don’t want you to be overcome with disappointment. Ain’t healthy.
The market seems to like the news, but much remains unanswered. Will the administration need to return the illegally gotten gains to consumers? To importers? To the transport companies that brought the goods from the ports of entry to the distribution centers? To the companies that delivered the goods from distribution centers to stores or to homes?
If required to pay back the loot, how would they even unwind the tangle of transactions? Many will have their hands out claiming that they need to be made whole. My guess is that it would be a waste of time and money for plaintiffs to try to recover the funds. The cost of litigation might very well exceed the value of the stolen money. We know that President Trump will not release that money without a fight. And what about the U.S. trade deficit? Will the country’s balance sheet needs to be revised?
Oy gevalt! This is not over.
I would expect there to be class action suits. But yes, it will be a mess.
I’m not sure that you can sue the U.S. Government for this sort of thing. AI suggests maybe but the government typically claims sovereign immunity.
Complicating the accounting would be three knock-on effects:
1) News reports describing the failure of inflation to skyrocket as expected quoted some importers as saying they had been able to get their foreign suppliers to give them price breaks to maintain sales volume, suggesting that the foreign supplier had been extracting some rent in its pricing. Those foreign exporters then did bear (some of) the cost of tariffs, just as President Trump said they would. Reimbursing the importers would be a unearned windfall for them, unless they out of the goodness of their hearts refunded the money back to their foreign suppliers, which they wouldn’t. An extra benefit is that the American importer now knows what (lower) price the foreign supplier is willing to sell for, and can be expected to demand that lower price even with the tariffs removed.
2) To the extent that Americans avoided the tariffs altogether by switching to domestic goods (possibly more expensive but possibly only just not exactly what the customer wanted, such as California sparkling instead of champagne), the tariffs couldn’t be refunded to them. No one knows who those tariff avoiders are, since they have no receipts of having paid any tariffs to the US Treasury.
3) Domestic currency tends to appreciate against foreign currencies when a country imposes tariffs, all else being equal (which it never is, of course.) A higher US dollar makes it easier for Americans to afford the tariffed imports and a lower foreign currency makes it easier for the exporter to sell abroad. Both effects go a considerable way to attenuating the impact of the tariffs on retail customers. This is the fundamental economic argument against the utility of tariffs as a way to encourage domestic production.
I can’t see the U.S. Treasury allowing $200 billion to just walk out the door, either. And it would have to be made up with higher taxes or more borrowing, so the taxpayer pays anyway.
Court of Federal Claims hears this sort of case, as stated in the Supreme Court decision.
“Where is he gonna go now?”
Jed Rubenfeld has his usual balanced and informative take on things. Check out his piece at the FP :
https://www.thefp.com/p/trumps-tariffs-are-downbut-not-out
Jed’s one of the reasons I subscribe to the FP. Nellie & Niall Ferguson are two more.
As an Antipodean I was outraged by the tariffs levied that have devastated the economies of the Heard and Macdonald Islands.
Anyhow, what’s the tax on Russian and North Korean imports this time round?
“Where is he gonna go now?” — to Hell I hope, and soon.
It just shows that all the Democrats convinced the U.S. had become an authoritarian hellscape were wrong. Democracy and the separation of powers are still working their wise ways. Tariffs were a bad idea, and only the (dysfunctional) Congress should levy them.
The Dems are not entirely wrong. For the first time ever, for example, the Justice Dept is openly proclaiming its loyalty to the President, when in all previous Adam administrations it was understood to be an independent entity. The Justice Dept building even hung a giant banner with Trump’s face on the front of its main building. This is the most authoritarian presidency we’ve ever had by far. And the Supreme Court has largely, until now, been enabling Executive overreach.
” the Supreme Court has largely, until now, been enabling Executive overreach…” In particular by bestowing on the US president a sovereign immunity which a Parliament court specifically denied to the English king, Charles 1 Stuart, in 1649. Noteworthy, perhaps, that 3 Supremes break with Trump only over an economic question on which the WSJ and many conservative economists also differ from his wild over-reach.
The Law of Comparative Advantage underlies no-tariff free trade. There will always be some exceptions such as protecting home food production in a world were not everybody is your friend. Trump may have something like this in mind but seems to go to the extreme.
If he now manages to put his tariffs back by other means it looks as if his powers a truly without the intended checks and balances of the Constitution.
Ah, but the Constitution’s various Cs&Bs are only intended if the Supreme Court doesn’t disagree. Let’s see which ones iDJT attacks next….
I have heard for months now, sometimes from loved ones, that we are living in a dictatorship. I mildly objected and for that I have been called every name in the book. I’ve lost a couple friends and sadly, my relationship with loved family members are strained because though I despise the Orange Toddler, I don’t think we’re in a dictatorship. Yet. I wish I could say what I write below to my friends and family, but it won’t make any difference and they still think I’m a shit because “I’m in denial”. So I’ll say it here, the only place in the inter tubes I ever write anything. People usually just ignore me, but when they don’t they are polite.
The Orange Toddler has now lost more than half of all court cases that have reached a decision and this one was his signature craziness. DICTATORS DO NOT LOSE COURT DECISIONS. And those who try to bring charges against them wind up in prison. The US sucks probably more than it ever has and we have little hope of prosperity again, but we’re not in a dictatorship. We’re ruled by a deeply depraved moron who is aided and abetted by a mortally wounded political system which no longer functions except as a kleptocracy. But it’s not the Third Reich, FFS.
That’s all I have to say. I know it’s like farting into the wind, but at least I got it out.
You are not alone. I’ve been shocked to my core by the reactions of long time friends when I point this out. Pariah is not a role I’d ever envisioned for myself.
You are of course correct, Edward. Be of good cheer.
The would-be dictator has to be very careful not to defy a constitutional court, even as Oliver points out below that he would want to. He runs the risk that his enemies will take that as licence to flout constitutional mechanisms themselves and remove him from office with violence, say by overpowering the Secret Service, kidnapping him and tossing him into a dungeon, and installing Gavin Newsom as “interim” President to cover the “temporary” emergency. If he says he’s not bound by the Constitution, he can’t rely on its protections, either. It’s a bit like playing Hearts and deciding to go for all 13. If you don’t get them all, plus the Queen of Spades, you lose bigly. There are too many institutions for one man to capture all 14 of them.
That’s where the expression comes from, “Treason doth never prosper. What’s the reason? Why [only!] if it prospers, none dare call it treason.” (Sir John Harrington)
You have my heartfelt sympathies.
I recently blew up an IRL discussion group specifically formed to deal with difficult topics. It emphasised mutual tolerance. I was careful to preface my remarks with a caution that some may find this difficult. I did not mean to offend anyone¹. But when I revealed that I felt genuinely thankful for one particular aspect of Trump’s outrages then the excrement dramatically hit the impeller. At least one member was visibly incredulous and outraged. The situation was well beyond recovery. She hasn’t been back.
This group was a long-running safe space with people who dealt well (or in my case, adequately) with others’ outside-the-box views. I can only begin to imagine the sort of reactions you encountered.
…………
¹ It’s important to me to not offend unless I choose to.
Also, Trump never loses. That would make him a loser, the lowest form of life. He is already proclaiming victories in the tariff area. I’m glad he’s doing that. I fear the day when he suffers a dramatic defeat that cracks his denial and causes a mental collapse. Rather like an extreme domestic abuser who kills his whole family, or a well-known dictator’s Nero Decree.
Think of Trump as a winner-identifying loser. We know about the particular power of similar identity delusions, and the extreme measures the sufferers take to hold on to them.
“Lordy be, now we have Trump attacking the conservative Supreme Court…” – J. Coyne
Well, populists will be populists.
“[P]opulists in power often behave as if courts are the most dangerous branch. If being the target of assaults is a criterion for identifying apparent threats to populist rulers, the judiciary must take the number one spot in the demonology of populist rulers. After being elected, populist rulers almost invariably take on the courts, often with fervor and unusual animus.”
(Sadurski, Wojciech. A Pandemic of Populists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. p. 106)
“Populists are particularly keen to capture constitutional courts wherever they exist, or supreme courts whenever they perform (in addition to their regular role as a top appellate court) a function of constitutional review. The reason is obvious: These courts have the authority to strike down statutes as unconstitutional. This puts them directly on a collision course with the government.
…
[Populists] often act as if there is no tomorrow. And any restriction on their authority – an authority that is after all conferred by a majority of the electorate – is viewed by them as unjustified, undemocratic, and thoroughly irritating. Hence, constitutional courts must be subordinated or captured. There is no room for “counter-majoritarian” institutions in a populist scheme.”
(Sadurski, Wojciech. A Pandemic of Populists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. p. 112)