Analysis: A telling judicial rebuke of Trump's tariffs – from another Trump appointee
The biggest story of President Donald Trump's second term thus far is his going to great lengths to expand his own power – and daring Congress, the courts and anyone else to stand in his way. Those who do so are labeled usurpers.
But the sheer brazenness of Trump's power grabs has steadily come into focus via a stream of major judicial rebukes.
And it's not just the language of the decisions that looms large; it's also the sources. Even several judges appointed by Trump himself have now ruled he and his administration have gone too far, too fast. It's a list that keeps growing.
That makes it increasingly difficult for the administration to continue arguing that the adverse rulings are truly about the judiciary's overreach – as opposed to its own.
A case in point is Wednesday's ruling by the US Court of International Trade striking down many of Trump's most significant tariffs. The ruling is one of the most significant yet, halting a centerpiece of both Trump's economic and foreign policy agendas.
The unanimous three-judge panel ruled that Trump exceeded his authority by effectively treating Congress's granting of certain tariff authorities as carte blanche to do whatever he wanted. (The administration quickly appealed, and the issue could be headed to the Supreme Court.)
And some of the language is pretty stark.
The case deals with Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. The act allows the president to levy tariffs 'to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat' emanating from outside the country 'to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.'
Trump has declared national emergencies related to drugs and crime, as well as persistent trade deficits with other countries. He has sought to use those declarations to justify tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, as well as the global tariffs he announced on what the administration deemed 'Liberation Day' last month.
But the three-judge panel said the IEEPA 'does not authorize anything as unbounded as the Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs.' It said that 'such a reading would create an unconstitutional delegation of power.'
The panel said tariffs were not a valid method to 'deal with' the threats Trump cited, because creating leverage over other countries doesn't directly address drug trafficking.
(In a rather dryly worded footnote, the judges noted that the tariffs 'do not change the effective rate of duty' – i.e. 0 percent – 'for smuggled drugs themselves.')
And it rejected the administration's argument that the courts couldn't question Trump's emergency declarations, saying a provision in the law that limits a president's tariff authority 'is not a symbolic festoon.'
The White House responded to the major setback with familiar talking points. They took aim at the actions of 'unelected judges,' asserting they shouldn't be able to question Trump's foreign policy actions. Top White House adviser Stephen Miller added on X: 'The judicial coup is out of control.'
But yet again, the ruling included none other than a judge appointed by Trump.
Trump first nominated Timothy Reif to the federal trade court back in 2018. Reif joined in the unanimous opinion – along with judges appointed by former Presidents Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan.
There is some nuance here. Trump allies note that Reif was a Democrat who served in the Obama administration. (Trump had to nominate a Democrat, given the court is capped at five appointees from one party or another.)
But Reif was also a political appointee in the Trump administration, serving as a senior advisor under then-U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer before his nomination to the federal trade court. Indeed, his decision to serve in the Trump administration reportedly caught allies off guard, as the Daily Beast reported in 2017.
The Wall Street Journal described Reif as 'a Democrat with a reputation as a protectionist,' which would suggest he could be sympathetic to Trump's trade policies and tariffs. (One of Trump's top trade advisers, Peter Navarro, is also a protectionist former Democrat.)
In sum, this is a vote that the administration would certainly prefer not to lose – especially given his vote wasn't even necessary for the court's majority.
But this is becoming a familiar tale. Repeatedly and increasingly, Trump-appointed judges have said the administration is grabbing too much power.
Earlier this week, a Trump-appointed US district judge in New York, Lewis J. Liman, blocked the administration's attempts to thwart New York City's congestion pricing program. He said the administration's policy 'undermines the authority of a sovereign state to authorize policy decided on by its elected representatives.'
Last month, another Trump-appointed US district judge, Stephanie A. Gallagher, ruled the administration had wrongly deported a man and had to 'facilitate' his return.
Another, Trevor McFadden, ruled the administration had unconstitutionally retaliated against the Associated Press by barring it from White House events, calling US officials' actions 'brazen.'
Yet another, Fernando Rodriguez Jr., in recent weeks became the first district judge to fully reject the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act for rapid deportations.
Another, Stephanie Haines, said the administration could use the Alien Enemies Act. But she sharply undercut its utility by saying the administration hadn't provided migrants enough time to challenge their deportations. The judge required they give 21 days.
And then there is, of course, the Supreme Court. Each of Trump's three appointees to that court – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – has declined to dissent when the court sought to check Trump's deportation powers. It's actually been the other conservative justices, the ones appointed by Republican presidents before Trump, who have been more amenable to the administration's actions. (The Supreme Court sometimes issues rapid orders that don't denote who voted which way, but justices can note when they dissent.)
It's somewhat fraught to focus too intensely on which president nominated a judge who issues a major decision. Federal judges, with the insulation of a lifetime appointment, are supposed to interpret the law without regard to politics.
But it says a lot that the people Trump has seen fit to appoint to such important roles have increasingly thwarted some of his boldest moves. That speaks to just how far he's pushed the envelope in challenging the limits of his power.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
16 minutes ago
- CBS News
Egg prices for consumers fell to 5-month low in May. Here's why.
Consumers are finally getting a break when it comes to egg prices. Egg prices dropped to $4.55 in May, down 11% from $5.12 in April, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The price drop for a dozen Grade A large eggs comes as the effects of a years-long, widespread avian flu outbreak recede and demand for eggs softens slightly, as it usually does this time of year. "There are two main drivers behind the drop in prices — abatement in the conversation about bird flu, and some seasonality in uses of eggs. Typically as we move into summer, demand for eggs soften, as people shift to consuming more meat and grilling outdoors," Brett House, an economics professor at Columbia Business School, told CBS MoneyWatch. "People aren't making heavy breakfasts, so we don't see demand for eggs being as strong as it typically is during the winter months." While egg prices have declined for two consecutive months, down from $6.23 a dozen in March, they remain elevated compared with 12 months ago. In May 2024, a dozen eggs cost $2.70. David Ortega, a food economics professor at Michigan State University, told CBS MoneyWatch that avian flu containment has been responsible for most of the decrease in the average price of eggs. "This is primarily due to a reduction in the number of commercial facilities that have been impacted by the bird flu," he said. "A lot of bird flu activity in the beginning of the year led to a significant surge in egg prices, but those impacts have really lessened over the past couple of months." Wholesale egg prices began to decrease in March, according to Ortega, and the price drops are now starting to show up at the retail level. "There's a bit of a lag before they reach consumers at the grocery store," he said. The bird flu outbreak, which began in the spring of 2022, is not yet entirely contained and continues to impact the industry, he cautioned. "It's still very much an issue," Ortega said. A May outbreak at an Arizona layer farm affected nearly 1.4 million birds, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Consumer Price Index data shows that while overall food costs rose slightly in May, egg prices dropped. "But egg prices are still substantially higher than they were 12 months ago, even after two months of decreases," House said.
Associated Press
16 minutes ago
- Associated Press
National Guard troops have temporarily detained civilians in LA protests, commander says
WASHINGTON (AP) — National Guard troops already have temporarily detained civilians in the Los Angeles protests over immigration raids, the commander in charge said Wednesday, but they quickly turned them over to law enforcement. Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman also said about 500 of the National Guard troops have been trained so far to accompany agents on immigration operations. Photos of Guard soldiers providing security for the agents have already been circulated by immigration officials. Sherman is commander of Task Force 51, which is overseeing the more than 4,000 Guard troops and 700 Marines who have been deployed to Los Angeles to provide security during the protests.
Forbes
17 minutes ago
- Forbes
Experts Say Retail Inflation Fears Have Moderated. Don't Believe It.
The inflation from tariffs takes time to arrive. getty The Wall Street Journal reports that the 2.4% (annualized) inflation in retail consumer prices in May was lower than expected and defies 'fears that the impact of President Trump's tariffs would start to show a rise in prices.' The New York Times says inflation is 'muted, with limited effects from tariffs.' Don't listen. There's a lot of reasons why the information for May is not indicative of what will happen the rest of the year. Here's why: When manufacturers abroad increase prices, it takes time to go through the system. Goods ordered today typically don't get delivered for another 90-180 days. That's the primary reason why inflation for May is moderate. The products being bought today were ordered and delivered before higher tariffs ever happened. But there are other reasons. Brands and wholesalers usually do everything they can to avoid price increases. As long as they're still selling older inventory that came in at lower tariff rates, they are going to hold off on increasing prices. The CEOs I talk to in the supply chain are trying to hold the line. They are sharing the cost of the tariffs among manufactuers, wholesalers and retailers so that they don't have to raise prices. That can work for a little while but it's not going to work for very long. There's also another short-term factor that's holding prices low. Wholesalers, brands and retailers are bringing out their slow-moving inventory. Because it can be sold at the old pre-tariff price, it's more attractive now than ever. Those less fashionable, slow-selling products are increasing the supply which is holding prices down. It's another short-term fix and it won't last for long. Because of timing, the inflation from tariff increases will show up at your local retailer in the third and fourth quarter. You will start to see it in the back-to-school season. It won't be in school basics that are ordered from manufacturers well in advance, like pencils and uniforms. You'll see it in discretionary items that are ordered closer to delivery dates, like licensed products or the latest toys. The fourth quarter is where the real impact will come. That's when almost no products on store shelves will have pre-tariff prices and increases will be unavoidable. While tariffs are the main driver of price increases, they aren't the only driver. The uncertainty around tariffs has made retailers very conservative. They are holding back on commitments to large orders of discretionary items. The things you want most won't be available to late shoppers or they may be more expensive. That conservative approach means less excess inventory this year, fewer sale items and fewer day-after items available. That will put upward pricing pressure on retailers and facilitate price increases. Coupled with the increased costs from tariffs, prices can only go in one direction and that's up. When you look at how consumers are acting, you can see it. Discretionary item sales in many categories were up a lot in April, as was foot traffic in stores. Consumers are advancing their purchases to beat the increases. Inflation is a self-accelerating phenomenon. The expectation of inflation causes workers to ask for more wages and their employers have to raise prices and the cycle keeps on going. Breaking the cycle is the challenge. Any basic cost increase including tariffs will push the inflationary cycle. It's on its way here and you will see it in good time.
