The editors of the Wall Street Journal are delighted that the U.S. Court of International Trade enjoined Trump’s tariffs:
In a ruling heard ’round the world, the U.S. Court of International Trade on Wednesday blocked President Trump’s sweeping tariffs. This is an important moment for the rule of law as much as for the economy, proving again that America doesn’t have a king who can rule by decree.
The Trump tariffs have created enormous costs and uncertainty, but now we know they’re illegal. As the three-judge panel explains in its detailed 52-page ruling, the President exceeded his emergency powers and bypassed discrete tariff authorities delegated to him by Congress. The ruling erases his April 2 tariffs as well as those on Canada and Mexico.
but their joy was short-lived. Kevin Breuninger reports at CNBC:
A federal appeals court on Thursday granted the Trump administration’s request to temporarily pause a lower-court ruling that struck down most of President Donald Trump’s tariffs.
The Trump administration had earlier told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that it would seek “emergency relief” from the Supreme Court as soon as Friday if the tariff ruling was not quickly put on pause.
The judgment issued Wednesday night by the U.S. Court of International Trade is “temporarily stayed until further notice while this court considers the motions papers,” the appeals court said in its order.
The pause gives the Trump administration some breathing room as it prepares to argue that the trade court’s ruling should be halted for the duration of the appeals process.
So, now what? I haven’t heard any reports yet of a case being filed with the Supreme Court.
On the dark side this presents even more uncertainty. On the bright side this is the way our process is supposed to work. I’d like to see the Congress get into this act.
U.S. Court of International Trade decisions are appealable to the Federal Circuit Court (not to be confused with the D.C. Circuit Court), whose decisions are appealable to the SCOTUS. The Administration has indicated that it intends to challenge the ruling all the way to the SCOTUS, and I think the SCOTUS will the final decision-maker here. That’s not based upon the merits of the decision, the Chief Justice has historically wanted the SCOTUS to have the final work on major issues regarding the structure of the federal government.
The Administration has asked the Circuit Court to halt the effect of the ruling while it pursues its legal recourse and the Circuit Court has granted a temporary administrative stay to allow itself time to get up to speed on the issues, including whether a longer stay is in order. I would not be surprised if the decision is stayed throughout the review process because of how courts treat monetary damages and taxes, as opposed to say deportation.
The rules state that the stay should first be sought from the lower court (Circuit Court) before seeking relief from the higher court. But since the circuit courts were ignoring motions for relief from TROs, the Administration started filing the request for stay in both, maybe the lower court first and the SCOTUS a few hours later. So I don’t know if anything was or will be filed in the SCOTUS here given that an administrative stay was entered, but if the stay is lifted, something will be.
The Court of International Trade decision is based in part on the nondelegation doctrine, which the SCOTUS last used in the mid-1930s. Resurrecting that doctrine has been on the conservative/libertarion wish list for some time. There have been a couple of cases teed up for the SCOTUS to address the doctrine, but it didn’t take the cases. If they apply it here, it would be another major strike against state administrative capacity.
(By state administrative capacity, I mean power exercised through career bureaucrats removed from politics and the electoral cycle capable of exercising autonomous and discretionary power.)
1. In relation to the President, recent court decisions have affirmed the President’s power to direct and remove policymakers in the executive branch. The SCOTUS has hinted that it will overrule the 1935 case of Humphrey’s Executor, but signaled that the Federal Reserve is different. However, the logic of overruling that case would mean the Fed needs to be reformed / stripped of some of its functions even if the SCOTUS is reluctant to go down that path.
2. In relation to Congress, the major questions doctrine (and possibly the nondelegation doctrine) restricts broad discretionary grants of authority to administrative agencies absent clear Congressional authorization. The effect is to reduce the power as agencies are creatures of statute through close reading of the statute. The effect is to require Congress to make more of the decisions as part of any agency delegation.
3. In relation to the courts, the SCOTUS overruled Chevron, which required deference to Agency interpretation of statutes it was charged with implementing. This is a claw-back of the court’s power to interpret the law from agencies in a similar way that executive and legislative power is being moved away agencies.
A lot of this is being done by Trump directly, but some of it, particularly in the case of tariffs, it is being advanced by his opposition. Interesting times to live in.
You posted on the US Steel situation recently. I thought this might be a good place to slip this in. Congratulation to Trump.
PS – there is a glaring erroneous assertion in the article. I’ll leave it up to you wannabe physical chemists to identify it.
https://hotair.com/salena-zito/2025/05/31/trump-makes-the-deal-of-a-lifetime-for-us-steel-n3803308