Maybe it’s naive of me but I find the U. S. Court of International Trade’s ruling that President Trump’s imposition of tariffs by executive order was illegal reassuring. Lindsay Whitehurst and Josh Boak report at the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal court on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency-powers law, swiftly throwing into doubt Trump’s signature set of economic policies that have rattled global financial markets, frustrated trade partners and raised broader fears about inflation intensifying and the economy slumping.
The ruling from a three-judge panel at the New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade came after several lawsuits arguing Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs exceeded his authority and left the country’s trade policy dependent on his whims.
I doubt that’s the last we’ll hear of the matter. What I think should happen is that the Trump Administration should encourage (if that’s the right word) the Congress to enact the tariffs he’s called for or some version thereof.
I’ve said it before that although I agree with steep tariffs on Chinese imports on a host of grounds not the least being all of the officially supported Chinese hacking going on I don’t agree with the broad tariffs President Trump has called for. So, what’s the administration’s next step? I think you’d be surprised at how many Democratic votes tariffs on China would get in the Senate.
Democrats have hardly been free traders so the idea they might support some tariffs is not surprising. It’s just that they don’t have anyone stupid or narcissistic enough, right now, to do what Trump did.
From what I’ve read this ruling is correct on the law. Not sure if a more targeted approach works.
I am so tired of hearing academic lectures about “free trade” in the face of subsidy, intellectual property theft and administrative strangling preventing US imports. But the real debate is whether or not legislative bodies and the electorate are willing to tolerate mercantilist policies of foreign countries. Alternatively, are you, Mr and Mrs America, willing to beggar thy neighbor for your cheap tee shirts and 65″ TV’s.
Democrats have made their position clear. It takes a village my ass.
There appear to be multiple issues:
1. Does the president have the legal authority to impose tariffs?
2. Do present circumstances fulfill the conditions laid out by Congress?
The answer to the first is definitely yes. The answer to the second is maybe. I must say I find these open-ended “emergencies” galling. They’ve been exploited by presidents of both parties. That should end.
Personally, I would add a third question. Does Congress have the authority to delegate the authority to impose tariffs to the president?
Ironically; legislating the tariffs into reconciliation would solve a lot of headaches for Republican legislators — they have been hammered because Trumps tariffs were by executive order and they couldn’t count tariff revenue as part of the budget process. By legislating 10% tariffs the resulting $2.5 trillion over 10 years would offset more than half the cost of extending TJCA.
Contrary to opinion legislation also helps with negotiations — its more concrete for other governments to negotiate over legislation then executive actions; in the same vein, legislation gives more certainty to business then an orders Trump issues. Also; it’s likely Trump crafted his “baseline tariffs” over concerns of lawsuits that legislation would’t face, so they could be improved on.
As to the legal aspects; I too think broad open ended emergencies are bad practices. I suspect the Supreme Court may eventually issue a mixed ruling that relies on the major questions doctrine and Youngstown. The flat 10% baseline tariff whose justification was trade deficits is voided because Congress already gave the President a more limited tariff authority to deal with balance of payments crisis in other statutes. The fentanyl tariffs is sustained in principle — through with a remand to district courts to see if they are “pre-textual” with regards to Canada in particular.