Top Tweets for #ieepatariffs

6 months ago

40 cents on the dollar for IEEPA refunds? No. Some companies are getting 70% – or way more It comes down to how you approach it: https://t.co/6EiKb7BOy1 #IEEPATariffs #IEEPARefunds

jimtompkins's tweet photo. 40 cents on the dollar for IEEPA refunds?
No.
Some companies are getting 70% – or way more
It comes down to how you approach it:
https://t.co/6EiKb7BOy1
#IEEPATariffs #IEEPARefunds https://t.co/NdeBcJC33T

The Pioneer

@TheDailyPioneer

7 months ago

BUSINESS Trade deal awaits new US tariff structure, says official Click- https://t.co/86vekHOoip #IndiaUSTradeDeal #BilateralTrade #USTariffs #IndiaExports #TradeAgreement #ComparativeAdvantage #IEEPATariffs #GlobalTrade #Section301Investigation #USTR #NonTariffBarriers #232Tariffs #RajeshAgarwal #TradeNegotiations #PreferentialMarketAccess #USIndiaRelations #TradePact #EconomicPolicy #MalaysiaTrade #InternationalCommerce

Carol Caul

@c_caul

8 months ago

#IEEPATARIFFS #USSUPREMECOURT THE CASE: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Tariffs), opinion date 02/20/2026 Here is a link to the unpublished, searchable 170-page opinion in pdf format: https://t.co/DTjbCvm1mJ This is part 2 of a two part posting regarding the SCOTUS opinion re IEEPA tariffs. This part examines parts of the opinion; SCOTUSBLOG’S interpretation and partial text from the opinion; plus a few comments of mine, especially criticism of express and repeated opinion reliance on the Major Questions doctrine. Major Questions was a doctrine used to overturn administrative law doctrine called the Chevron Doctrine which applied to administrative regulations, not statutes, and not internal administrative interpretations.) The 6-3 decision in a 170 page opinion is very fractured with multiple opinions and concurrences. A few important things not in the decision: (1) There is no mention of the obligation to refund; It did not weigh in, however, on whether or how the federal government should provide refunds to the importers who have paid the tariffs, estimated in 2025 at more than $200 billion. (2) A very lengthy part of the majority opinion by the Republicans is founded in the Major Questions doctrine. (I knew that doctrine would turn back against us.) The Republican majority relied heavily on the new Major Questions doctrine from WVA v EPA. I thought that doctrine would die once the EPA dismantled our environmental regulations.); Rather shockingly the majority said “some of the tariffs had been aimed at the influx of drugs” and some at unfair trade practices, but those were not excuses for reliance on IEEPA. “There is no exception to the major questions doctrine for emergency statutes” or for foreign affairs. (How this language can work in the face of an emergency is beyond me unless contingent tariffs are in place: if x happens, then y results.) The Democrats noted that they did NOT invoke Major Questions because ordinary statutory interpretation could be used (since when has that been their theory) to reach a concurrence with the majority. (3) The Court noted the word tariff does not appear in the IEEPA statutes and other specific avenues would need to be sought. (4) The dissents posit that, quoting Justice Thomas quoting Justice Kavanaugh :”the Court’s decision today cannot be justified as a matter of statutory interpretation. Congress authorized the President to “regulate . . . importation.” 50 U. S. C. §1702(a)(1)(B). Throughout American history, the authority to “regulate importation” has been understood to include the authority to impose duties on imports. Post, at 9–13, 22–29 (KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting).” There is little scholarly history for the Major Questions’ doctrine, but it was just as fatal here as in the EPA deregulatory rules for vehicle emissions. I guess using Major Questions again here cements a place for that theory in part of our high level jurisprudence. Many scholars had forecast that the doctrine would be short-lived. (I am a member of the Supreme Court Bar and have extensive administrative law experience, but virtually no tariff experience.) The law at the center of the case is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, known as IEEPA (statutory language cited in part 1), which authorizes the president to use the law “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the president declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.” A separate provision of the law provides that when there is a national emergency, the president may “regulate … importation or exportation” of “property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest.” The dispute at the center of Friday’s opinion began last year, when Trump issued a series of executive orders imposing the tariffs. Lawsuits filed by small businesses and a group of states, all of which say that they are affected by the increased tariffs, were filed in the lower courts, which agreed with the challengers that IEEPA did not authorize Trump’s tariffs. But those rulings were put on hold, allowing the government to continue to collect the tariffs while the Supreme Court proceedings moved forward. In a splintered decision on Friday, the Supreme Court agreed with the challengers that IEEPA did not give Trump the power to impose the tariffs. “Based on two words separated by 16 others in … IEEPA—‘regulate’ and ‘importation’—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote (in the majority opinion). “Those words,” he continued, “cannot bear such weight.” “IEEPA,” Roberts added, “contains no reference to tariffs or duties.” Moreover, “until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power.” MAJOR QUESTIONS: In a part of the opinion joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Roberts said that Trump’s reliance on IEEPA to impose the tariffs violated the “major questions” doctrine – the idea that if Congress wants to delegate the power to make decisions of vast economic or political significance, it must do so clearly. “When Congress has delegated its tariff powers,” Roberts said, “it has done so in explicit terms, and subject to strict limits,” a test that Trump’s tariffs failed here.

539

Carol Caul

@c_caul

8 months ago

#IEEPATARIFFS #USSUPREMECOURT This is part 1 of a two-part posting regarding the 02/20/26 SCOTUS opinion re IEEPA tariffs. This part points out some of the fallout and means to fix this decision as well as DJT remarks at a press conference. I also include the actual statutory language that was interpreted. The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Friday, ruled on 02/20/2026, President Donald Trump's signature tariffs, holding that the tariffs exceed the powers given to the president by Congress under a 1977 law providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats. The case: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Tariffs), opinion date 02/20/2026 VOTE: 6-3 (with the scholars Kavanaugh and Alito being in the minority, and Roberts and Barrett being in the majority). Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion; Gorsuch, Barrett, Kagan, Jackson concurred; Dissenters were Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh PRESIDENT TRUMP’S POSITION RE TARIFFS. This opinion is a major problem. (1) DJT uses tariff as a negotiating mechanism. He will find an alternative. In a press conference, President Trump also pointed out the decision did not address refunds, and so, therefore, the administration does not have a specific plan on refunds. He stated there might be litigation for 5 years (I would say much longer.) Canada and Mexico are not involved in the decision. President Trump importantly pointed out he has express statutory authority to embargo or to license, but cannot charge any fee. So he has enormous power to act; he just cannot under the Court's majority opinion attach any financial consequences. (2) DJT stated that another avenue for tariffs is the investigation of UNFAIR TRADING PRACTICES (such as dumping). (3) Perhaps more importantly President Trump uses tariffs to prevent wars (and does it very well and at lower cost and less death and destruction). In his remarks at the press conference, DJT pointed out that under the decision, he could embargo an entire country but could not impose a $1 tariff fee. SCOTUS said DJT had the right to license, but not the right to charge a fee. SCOTUS majority Republicans basically opined that Congress had not expressly delegated the authority to the Executive Branch to impose the tariffs imposed under IEEPA. They stated the word “tariff” does not appear in the statutes the Administration relied on. If that sounds like Major Questions, it is. OUTSIDE LEGAL ADVICE: Probably our very best constitutional scholars John Yoo and Jonathan Turley weighed in expressing regret about the decision and that the Administration would find a way around. Sec Treas Scott Bessent said the same. I highly recommend that outside Profs Yoo and Turley be consulted by the Administration. Don't just discuss with inhouse counsel; this has the potential for a lot of money and protracted litigation. Prof Yoo said that a fix would involve being nation specific rather than using a global emergency theory. LEGAL INTERPRETATION: The two statutes are written in very broad language. Broad language engenders broad interpretation. The 1702 statute specifically addresses Presidential authorization. EMERGENCY: Prof Yoo pointed out that SCOTUS did not focus on “EMERGENCY” which had been a concern. Some countries do pose an emergency; others may not. The tariffs were imposed across the board. But President Trump uses tariffs to settle percipient wars and international disputes which is certainly an inchoate emergency. PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SAD BUT RESOLUTE: He criticized the Republican Justices who sided with the majority. He praised Justice Kavanaugh for his opinion. I agree wholeheartedly with both characterizations. DJT went ahead and imposed some additional tariffs.👍 PROBLEMS: Kavanaugh, hands down our finest scholar on the Court, said the decision and its resolution presented a mess. Kavanaugh had been saying that since the Court took up the case. Mark Levin, another well known constitutional scholar said the case was not even justiciable, and the Court would therefore have no (subject matter) jurisdiction. Several have said that refunds would not commence for months. Others who will speak will say that this puts investment plans in the US in jeopardy. CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH A 51 VOTE. Bernie Moreno and others are saying this problem can be fixed with a 51 reconciliation vote. I think there will be significant disagreement over something so major, but I am with Bernie. Congress ought to try. That will be far more clear and fast that a regulation making process which usually takes a year and is not as enforceable. Ditto for an Executive Order. This is the time for senior Senators and Scott Bessent to show us how smart they are, and they are certainly very smart and to listen to outside counsel. This is strict constructionalism at its strictest, and I wait to see how frequently the left-wing justices will rely on that in birthright citizenship and other cases in which magic words are omitted and contextualism has to be used. It diminishes presidential authority and enhances congressional authority. CONGRESS NEEDS TO FIX THE IEEPA LANGUAGE: Congress needs to clarify exactly how the tariffs may be imposed and whether they will only act AFTER an emergency is roaring in the face of the nation. Maybe more importantly, just what sort of “EMERGENCY” may be declared. KAVANAUGH DISSENT: Justice Kavanaugh said the decision might not substantially constrain DJT from using other paths to impose tariffs. MAJOR QUESTIONS DOCTRINE: The Republicans in the majority repeatedly cited and relied on the new, administrative law principle in WVA v EPA “Major Questions” and lack of specific wording as a basis for striking down the IEEPA tariffs. (Very sadly, the Administration got hoisted on its own petard. Many of us warned about the unscholarly major questions doctrine that has been used to deregulate EPA action. This is not an administrative law case; this is a separation of powers case which some like Mark Levin would argue is not even justiciable; it is a political question.) QUOTATION OF THE STATUTES: AUTHORIZATION: “50 U.S. Code § 1702 - Presidential authorities (in part): (a) In general (1) At the times and to the extent specified in section 1701 of this title, the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise— (A)investigate, regulate, or prohibit— (i)any transactions in foreign exchange, (ii)transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country or a national thereof, (iii)the importing or exporting of currency or securities, by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; (B )investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; “50 U.S. Code § 1701 - (This statute is provided for context. § 1702 is what was interpreted.) "Unusual and extraordinary threat; declaration of national emergency; exercise of Presidential authorities” which provides in part: (a)Any authority granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may be exercised to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat. “(b) Exceptions to grant of authority”: The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly— THERE IS NOTHING HERE THAT IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESIDENT’S AUTHORITY Sadly, I must admit that I was one of the persons who urged the use of IEEPA as a justification of the tariffs imposed. It does not count that the brilliant Justice Kavanaugh agrees. The SCOTUS majority wins. As a member of the bar, though, I bear some responsibility. ABOUT TARIFF LITIGATION: This litigation was brought by a small firm but one backed by big antagonistic monies. Frequently small firms bring litigation to protect their right to refunds. Such litigation is a pain, but is normal.

260

NicoleBivensCollinso @NicoleBivensC

over 1 year ago

#TMIT CIT, CAFC, and District Court action on IEEPA tariffs. Listen for details on today’s Two Minutes In Trade. #CIT #CAFC #districtcourt #ieepatariffs Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. @STRTRADE https://t.co/jMd4CcdcfT

647

Top Tweets for #ieepatariffs

Last Seen Hashtags on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users