(05-28-2025 06:33 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  https://www.axios.com/2025/05/28/trump-t...urt-ruling

Court ruled Trump doesn't have the authority to set tariffs

A federal court on Wednesday ruled President Trump does not have the authority under economic emergency legislation to impose sweeping global tariffs.

Why it matters: The U.S. Court of International Trade's ruling could bring the administration's trade war to a screeching halt.

Driving the news: The court, ruling in two separate cases, issued a summary judgment throwing out all the tariffs Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

Trump used the 1977 law, which had never before been invoked in a tariff situation, to unilaterally impose sweeping trade levies worldwide.
The two groups of plaintiffs — businesses and states — sued on the grounds that the president's orders violated the Constitution's grant of authority over import duties to Congress.
What they're saying: "The question in the two cases before the court is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 ("IEEPA") delegates these powers to the President in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world," the three-judge panel wrote.

"The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder."

And that ruling just got overturned... celebrate too soon Mensa?

(05-29-2025 02:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  womp womp

Yes, that was a hot minute or two.

More to come, no doubt.

Can’t wait to read further to soak in the “experts” opinions on here…

Mensa is the champion of failed threads.

It sounds like they're just back on as the appeal works its way through, right?

Who hears the appeal?

Tom just so you know, i think youre' referring to the general tariffs:

That would fall under a different use and would be very easy to associate to national security (particularly in regard to China, but I think could easily apply anywhere else (such as european nations that are sticking themselves in the Ukraine-Russia conflict), which would then fall under this one:

(05-29-2025 03:59 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Tom just so you know, i think youre' referring to the general tariffs:

That would fall under a different use and would be very easy to associate to national security (particularly in regard to China, but I think could easily apply anywhere else (such as european nations that are sticking themselves in the Ukraine-Russia conflict), which would then fall under this one:

I wasn't speaking to any specific tariff. Just to the ruling today.

Quote:A federal appeals court on Thursday allowed President donald trump’s tariffs to remain in effect for now, despite another court’s ruling just one day earlier that said the president overstepped his authority by imposing the tariffs.

trump tariffs face legal battle as federal appeals court temporarily blocks trade ruling

(05-29-2025 03:22 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Cuffed on day 1 by the Federal Circuit Court en banc. Majority of them were appointed by democrats BTW...it was such a specious decision by the lower court it left them no other choice.

I'll be that guy...Toldja it would get hammered.

A stay is now “hammered”. Got it.

He isn't talking about hammered by vodka like you tanq.

(05-29-2025 04:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2025 03:22 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Cuffed on day 1 by the Federal Circuit Court en banc. Majority of them were appointed by democrats BTW...it was such a specious decision by the lower court it left them no other choice.

I'll be that guy...Toldja it would get hammered.

A stay is now “hammered”. Got it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't both court rulings sort of expected?

(05-29-2025 04:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2025 03:22 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Cuffed on day 1 by the Federal Circuit Court en banc. Majority of them were appointed by democrats BTW...it was such a specious decision by the lower court it left them no other choice.

I'll be that guy...Toldja it would get hammered.

A stay is now “hammered”. Got it.

Keep hope alive Mr. Kinzinger!

(05-29-2025 03:24 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(05-29-2025 03:22 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Cuffed on day 1 by the Federal Circuit Court en banc. Majority of them were appointed by democrats BTW...it was such a specious decision by the lower court it left them no other choice.

I'll be that guy...Toldja it would get hammered.

But, Tanq said...

You certainly do read a lot more into normal English sentences than most.

Lolz.

He's a legal giant. lol

(05-29-2025 04:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-29-2025 04:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2025 03:22 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Cuffed on day 1 by the Federal Circuit Court en banc. Majority of them were appointed by democrats BTW...it was such a specious decision by the lower court it left them no other choice.

I'll be that guy...Toldja it would get hammered.

A stay is now “hammered”. Got it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't both court rulings sort of expected?

Not unexpected for the stay. Not hard to make the balance between the parties swing the way of keeping them in place while being decided.

If the appeal is overturned, the Plaififfs sue to get their paid tariffs back.

If the appeal is affirmed, kind of hard to put the govt back to equal. And would simply lead to more TACO ****.

(05-29-2025 04:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2025 04:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-29-2025 04:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2025 03:22 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Cuffed on day 1 by the Federal Circuit Court en banc. Majority of them were appointed by democrats BTW...it was such a specious decision by the lower court it left them no other choice.

I'll be that guy...Toldja it would get hammered.

A stay is now “hammered”. Got it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't both court rulings sort of expected?

Not unexpected for the stay. Not hard to make the balance between the parties swing the way of keeping them in place while being decided.

If the appeal is overturned, the Plaififfs sue to get their paid tariffs back.

If the appeal is affirmed, kind of hard to put the govt back to equal. And would simply lead to more TACO ****.

No matter how many times Lucy pulls the football on you guys, you still keep trying to kick one thru the goalposts against the Orange Man. It's kinda cute and most definitely hilarious.

(05-29-2025 04:36 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(05-29-2025 04:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2025 04:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-29-2025 04:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-29-2025 03:22 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Cuffed on day 1 by the Federal Circuit Court en banc. Majority of them were appointed by democrats BTW...it was such a specious decision by the lower court it left them no other choice.

I'll be that guy...Toldja it would get hammered.

A stay is now “hammered”. Got it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't both court rulings sort of expected?

Not unexpected for the stay. Not hard to make the balance between the parties swing the way of keeping them in place while being decided.

If the appeal is overturned, the Plaififfs sue to get their paid tariffs back.

If the appeal is affirmed, kind of hard to put the govt back to equal. And would simply lead to more TACO ****.

No matter how many times Lucy pulls the football on you guys, you still keep trying to kick one thru the goalposts against the Orange Man. It's kinda cute and most definitely hilarious.

How is my comment above either pro- *or* anti- Trump, big guy? Maybe try to figure out what a post actually says before you roll into your oh-so typical ORU response. Just a thought…..

(05-29-2025 03:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  It sounds like they're just back on as the appeal works its way through, right?

Who hears the appeal?

wompity womp womp womp

(05-28-2025 06:33 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  https://www.axios.com/2025/05/28/trump-t...urt-ruling

Court ruled Trump doesn't have the authority to set tariffs

A federal court on Wednesday ruled President Trump does not have the authority under economic emergency legislation to impose sweeping global tariffs.

Why it matters: The U.S. Court of International Trade's ruling could bring the administration's trade war to a screeching halt.

Driving the news: The court, ruling in two separate cases, issued a summary judgment throwing out all the tariffs Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

Trump used the 1977 law, which had never before been invoked in a tariff situation, to unilaterally impose sweeping trade levies worldwide.
The two groups of plaintiffs — businesses and states — sued on the grounds that the president's orders violated the Constitution's grant of authority over import duties to Congress.
What they're saying: "The question in the two cases before the court is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 ("IEEPA") delegates these powers to the President in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world," the three-judge panel wrote.

"The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder."

How's that working out for ya today, Marc?

Mensa's arse must be pretty sore at this point.