The Rough Day in Court for Trump's Tariffs
The oral argument touched on key questions in the dispute: Do chronic problems like the trade imbalance and cross-border drug smuggling qualify as emergencies allowing the president to set aside normal laws? Do federal courts have the power to review the president's emergency determinations? And does the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the 1977 law known as Ieepa that Trump invoked, allow the president to impose tariffs at all?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Law journal article proves that citizen ballot questions are under attack
If you've ever suffered from that nagging feeling that the Legislature is systematically trying to undermine your right to petition something onto the ballot, you're not alone. I've had it, too. We need to start trusting that gut feeling. It turns out we weren't wrong. That's exactly what the Republican majority in the Legislature has been trying to do. It has just been proven by three authors of a South Dakota Law Review article: 'Have Recent Legislative Changes in South Dakota Made Using the Initiated Measure Process More Difficult?' It seems the answer to the question in the title of the article is yes, and how. You can find the article on the Law Review's website. Be warned: at 40-some pages, it's not an easy read. There are footnotes strewn about and readers may struggle with some of the world's ugliest charts. However it still tells a compelling tale of how, since 2017, the Republican super-majority in the Legislature has been whittling away at the rights of citizens to petition measures onto the ballot. Republicans may scoff at the article as so much whining from the left as two of the authors are well-known Democrats: activist Cory Heidelberger and former State Sen. Reynold Nesiba. While a Republican byline would have been nice for the sake of balance, there's no disputing the truth of the facts they have compiled. These bills were filed and are there for anyone to look up. Their paper gets particularly interesting when it goes about listing the Legislature's 14 worst bills designed to cut back the rights of citizens to petition an initiative onto the ballot. Those range from insisting on a larger font size on petitions to make them unwieldy, to allowing petition signers to later withdraw their names after the petition has been submitted, and a couple of attempts to raise the vote total needed for passage of the initiative beyond a simple majority. Some of these attacks on our rights were defeated at the ballot box; some were challenged in court where they fell short of being entirely constitutional. Sadly, some were enacted into law. At least now, through the work of the article's authors, the grim history of the war on ballot initiatives in South Dakota is summed up in one place. Unfortunately, while that history has been chronicled, the siege still continues. The authors go on to mention seven petition-related bills and five constitutional amendments submitted in the 2025 legislative session, 10 of which, they say, sought to curtail the rights of citizens to initiate ballot measures. When legislators want to amend the state constitution themselves, they have to convince a majority of their colleagues to send the amendment to voters. This legislative quest to get on the 2026 ballot through constitutional amendments comes from the same party that tries to curtail voter access to the petition process by claiming that voters have ballot fatigue with so many issues to decide on Election Day. This ignores the fact that in each case, more than 17,000 South Dakotans applied their signatures to petitions, a sure sign that there are plenty of people who think the ballot issue is something that should go before voters. This years-long attempt to curtail the initiative process is nothing more than a means for the Republican super-majority to solidify its power by cutting off people they don't agree with from access to the ballot. Republican efforts aren't trying to make the process better or more secure. They're just tired of beating back attempts to legalize marijuana and abortion. The irony here is that in the Statehouse, no piece of legislation is ever blocked. Sure, there may be some arm-twisting that could lead to a bill being tabled or withdrawn, but each bill is handled in the light of day. These same Republicans who are so upright and transparent with legislation are working overtime to have darkness descend on the ballot box. Their attempts to slow or stop citizen access to the ballot initiative process is a sign of the power that citizens wield. The recent law journal article has proven that this notion that our rights are under attack is more than just a gut feeling. We now have a historic record that spells out the way Republicans have been trying to take away the power of citizens to petition their government. This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Law journal article proves that citizen ballot questions are under attack
USA Today
11 minutes ago
- USA Today
'They're trying to rig the system': Sen. Padilla says Dems should fight fire with fire
California's Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla said his party should be willing to fight fire with fire, in light of Texas' potential, controversial gerrymandering plans. "If Republicans were confident on their policy agenda, they'd be eager to defend it with the people and to defend it at the ballot box next November," Padilla said in an Aug. 3 interview on NBC's "Meet the Press." "But they know they're in trouble," he continued. "And so they're trying to rig the system to hold on to power." The California senator was referencing Texas Republicans' proposed new map of their state's congressional districts, following President Donald Trump's urging that the GOP find a way to flip as many as five seats in next year's midterm elections. "Just a very simple redrawing, we pick up five seats," Trump told reporters on July 15. Padilla likened Trump's ask of Texas Republicans to his request during his first term in office that a top Georgia official "find 11,780 votes" to put him over the top in the Electoral College for the 2020 election. Redistricting in the middle of the decade, rather than every ten years after new census data is collected, is rare. And the pushback from Democrats across the country has been widespread. Blue state leaders have threatened tit-for-tat responses, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has suggested redrawing his state's map to counteract Texas' efforts. (Newsom faces the challenge of a bipartisan redistricting commission, which oversees California's maps, unlike Texas, where lawmakers dictate the boundaries.) Some California Democrats are wary, warning that a redistricting arms race could spiral and erode trust with voters. In response to those concerns, Padilla told NBC he believes it's appropriate for the Democrat-controlled state to evaluate its options. "The ideal scenario," he said, "is for Texas to stand down. They don't have to do this; they shouldn't do this. But if they were to go forward and deliver Trump his five additional Republicans ... the stakes are simply too high" for Democrats not to respond. Padilla also addressed recent comments from his fellow Democrats about the state of politics and American democracy, including Sen. Cory Booker's call for his party to "have a backbone." "It's time for us to fight. It's time for us to draw lines," Booker said from the Senate floor on July 29. Asked whether Booker's defiant approach was the appropriate stance for Democrats under the Trump administration, Padilla said, "Look, I think the extreme way in which this administration is conducting itself calls for higher and higher profile ways of pushing back." After announcing that she would not be running for California governor in 2026, former Vice President Kamala Harris appeared on CBS's "The Late Show" with Stephen Colbert. In her interview on July 31, Harris told Colbert, "Recently, I made the decision that, for now, I don't want to go back into the system. I think it's broken." Padilla agreed, in part, with Harris' take, saying, "I think the system is under duress." "Democrats are doing our part to try to stand up and push back," he added.
New York Post
11 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump trade adviser pledges tariffs ‘pretty much set' as several countries scramble for deals
President Trump's newly unveiled tariff rates are unlikely to change much, his trade adviser and National Economic Council declared, while downplaying the risk of market turmoil. 'I know a lot of these are set rates pursuant to deals,' US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told CBS News' 'Face the Nation' on Sunday. 'Some of these deals are announced, some are not, others depend on the level of the trade deficit or surplus we may have with the country.' 'These tariff rates are pretty much set. I expect I do have my phone blowing up,' he added. 'I think that we have, we're seeing truly the contours of the President's tariff plan right now with these rates.' Advertisement Trump initially unveiled a 10% baseline tariff rate against virtually every country on the planet and then a slate of customized rates on top of that during his April 2 'Liberation Day' announcement. The stock market promptly took a nosedive and Trump later announced a pause on the implementation of those tariffs to allow time for negotiations to play out. 3 Kevin Hasset ruled out the possibility of President Trump backtracking on tariffs due to market reactions. AP Advertisement 3 Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said most of the tariff deals are set. AFP via Getty Images Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council, downplayed the risks of a similar crash this time around because 'the markets have seen what we're doing.' 'I would rule it out because these are the final deals,' Hassett told NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday when asked about Trump changing the tariff rates due to market reactions. During the negotiating sprint that followed 'Liberation Day,' Trump's team helped cut deals with the European Union, United Kingdom, Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Cambodia, Thailand and more. Advertisement 'We have eight deals that cover about 55% of world GDP with our biggest trading partners, the EU and Japan and Korea and so on, and I expect that those [rates] are more or less locked in,' Hassett said. 'For the deals that aren't ready yet, they're going to get the reciprocal rates soon, and then we would expect that there might continue to be negotiations with those countries.' 3 President Trump has made overhauling US trade policy a centerpiece of his second term agenda. AP Last week, Trump's team unveiled a revised slate of customized tariff rates to be imposed against various countries, after previously delaying implementation of the 'Liberation Day' tariffs twice. Advertisement Most of those tariffs ranged from 40% to his baseline 10% rate. They will be effective on Aug. 7, per Trump's executive order. Meanwhile, Trump also has a tariff truce with China that is set to end on Aug. 12 and has given Russia until Aug. 8 to cut a peace deal with Ukraine before he implements secondary tariffs or sanctions on countries that purchase oil from Moscow. 'There are trade ministers who want to talk more and see how they can work in a different way with the United States, but I think that we have, we're seeing truly the contours of the President's tariff plan right now with these rates,' Greer assessed. Trump is also facing litigation in the courts over the legality of his tariffs, with the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hearing arguments for the administration's defense of the moves last Thursday. The president had tapped into his emergency powers to impose the sweeping tariffs, but there are legal questions about whether he has the authority to do that.
