Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
I just read the Reuters story. The Supreme Court's ultimate adjudication of this case will be interesting to watch.
"A divided U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday that most of Donald Trump's tariffs are illegal, undercutting the Republican president's use of the levies as a key international economic policy tool. The court allowed the tariffs to remain in place through October 14 to give the Trump administration a chance to file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court."
"'It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs,'" the ruling said. 'The statute neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the President’s power to impose tariffs.'"
So many questions. Does the government have to repay every entity that they collected tariffs from, if this ruling holds up? What happens with all the side deals (investments) that were supposedly tied to these tariff agreements? How does the market react if tariffs are ultimately tossed? Does Congress then commence to reimpose tariffs at Trump's direction? How would denial of tariffs influence the FED's rate decisions? Does SCOTUS continue down the path of giving more and more authority to this, and all future POTUS?
And most importantly, does Trump's head explode if he cannot have his way?
As other's have stated, more chaos and uncertainty for business and investors.
That about sums it up. Now waiting for a suit against the entire Federal Circuit Court as having made a "direct assault on the President’s ability to" conduct foreign affairs.
Analogous to the suit against the Maryland district court judges for its ruling constituting "direct assault on the President’s ability to enforce the immigration laws".
This looks to have been more of a 4-3-4 decision that did not go exactly along the party lines as per appointees: [3x Dem, 1x Rep] - [3x Dem] - [1x Dem, 3x Rep]
Also, there is this bit [corrected per msf post below]:
We are not addressing whether the President’s actions should have been taken as a matter of policy. We are notNor are we deciding whether IEEPA authorizes any tariffs at all. Rather, the only issue we resolve on appeal is whether the Trafficking Tariffs and Reciprocal Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders are authorized by IEEPA. We conclude they are not.
So, it is not about "the tariffs", but what kind [or instances, per msf] of tariffs.
They are now going to argue about what kindsort of tariffs are or are not allowed. And, because this was not a straight party-line decision, it will make it that much harder to predict how and when the SCOTUS votes.
All of this means a lot more uncertainty for the market is coming...
At least they had the good sense to release this decision on Friday after market and before a holiday weekend. Else, with market tanking on today's announcement of core PCE rising 2.9% in July and highest since February, we might have had another 'Liberation Day'-scale week of fun... Not to say that next week will not be.
Don't believe everything you read on the internet. A link to the full court ruling is below. "We are not deciding" is not to be found. People, please provide links when you give quotes. It's darn hard to find a quote that doesn't exist.
This is the actual text, similar to, but not identical to, what was given as a verbatim quote:
We are not addressing whether the President’s actions should have been taken as a matter of policy. Nor are we deciding whether IEEPA authorizes any tariffs at all. Rather, the only issue we resolve on appeal is whether the Trafficking Tariffs and Reciprocal Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders are authorized by IEEPA. We conclude they are not.
The court is not avoiding deciding the kind of tariffs that are permissible or impermissible. That was never in question. At issue were whether specific instances (not kinds) of tariffs imposed by particular executive orders were legal.
The court did what courts generally do: address specific question(s) raised and not make sweeping pronouncements.
All but the four dissenting judges signed on to the majority opinion. That is, seven judges approved the decision in full. See p. 4 for the names of the seven judges who joined in the opinion.
Then look at the concurrence by four of the judges (p. 47). It begins: "We join the majority opinion in full." There is no split.
They go on to say:
While we agree with the majority that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., does not grant the President authority to impose the type of tariffs imposed by the Executive Orders, Maj. Op. at 26–42, we write separately to state our view that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose any tariffs.
Okay, there's the word "type". I read it broadly, not literally as "kind", but perhaps as "size" or "breadth of scope". The majority opinion says that "we discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs of the magnitude of the Reciprocal Tariffs and Trafficking Tariffs. " Perhaps inconsequential, de minimis tariffs (of whatever kind) could slide through.
Thank you for pointing out the inaccurate quotation, @msf. I have changed it in my original post so that there are no discrepancies.
However, the basic premise remains the same: whether they are talking about instances or kinds, they are prolonging the the debate by devolving the issue into more and more elements, which is exacerbating uncertainty - markets' worst poison.
And lest you come back with the court did what courts generally do, I would argue "No" because they had 2 other options:
1. "Plurality" on the Left (4 judges):
"we write separately to state our view that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose any tariffs."
(p. 47).
2. "Plurality" on the Right (4 judges):
"we would reverse the CIT’s summary judgment... [that] ...reciprocal tariffs are unauthorized by IEEPA".
(p. 64)
Either one of those options would have been better than prolonging this investigation of specific types, kinds, magnitudes or whatever other qualifiers might be applied to the particular set of tariffs in question as the matter will end up being decided at SCOTUS regardless of which side prevailed in this round.
Alas, this was indeed a 4-3-4 decision - or, more accurately [4-3]-4 - where one of the "wings", the Left wing in this case, had decided to compromise and join the "center" to get a majority opinion out. Unfortunately, as is the case with most compromises that do not ultimately solve the problem, this one ended up worsening the underlying predicament not just for the legal world but for the world at large.
P.S. It would be some relief to have the de minimis tariffs of whatever kind back and if this compromise decision helps bring it about - so much the better. I would venture, however, that the ensuing chaos in the world's postal and trade networks is more likely to force the corresponding policy reversal than a transient impact of any intermediate court decision.
This case might be summed up simply as the government claiming that "IEEPA [statute] provid[es]ing the President power to impose unlimited tariffs" and the court responding, no it doesn't, not here. The concurrence went further and said in effect, "not anywhere".
A decision is a plurality decision when fewer than a majority of judges sign onto it. That's not the situation (dare I say "case"?) here. A majority of the judges completely agreed with the reasoning. That's not a compromise to "go along".
In cases in which one or more judges say they agree with the result but would go further (as here), a majority fails to exist only when the concurring judges give a different rationale for the outcome of the case. That disagreement manifests when the concurring judges fail to sign onto the court opinion.
It goes into a case, Greene v. Esplanade Venture Partnerships, 36 N.Y.3d 513, 526-48 (2021),, where the concurring judges opine that “The Court has missed the moment” to expand a narrow ruling (quote is from Greene).
The concurring judges would have discarded the court reasoning and replaced it with a different, broader rationale. They agreed with the outcome but did not sign onto the court opinion.
In contrast, the concurring judges here agree with the reasoning applied. They state that in addition to the specifics of this case, they would apply the reasoning more broadly. The majority does not disagree with this; it just avoids the question as being unnecessary to resolve.
Simple logic. If one claims a universal fact, as the government here claimed that the president could impose unlimited tariffs, all that is needed to refute that claim is a single counterexample (the tariffs in question). One does not need to "prove" the inverse, viz. the government can never impose any tariffs unilaterally.
ISTM the court has made a wise decision not to adopt the concurrence as the court opinion. That would serve as an invitation for the current Supreme Court to rule on further expanding presidential power. Instead, we have a somewhat narrow ruling on the specifics of this case, of these particular tariffs. While the SC can always broaden the issue on its own, it will have to push that door open; it has not yet been opened.
in practicality, nothing has changed nor will change. a. this ruling is a stay, trump will rely on scotus and ignore if needed, congress continues to abandon its tariff mandate. b. multiple other paths exist for trump to threaten\declare tariffs until he gets his cut.
there seems to be no concern regarding the economy during midterms, as trump will rely on his propaganda to lay blame, and his secret police to enforce fair elections.
It seems to open up or point out an opportunity for SCOTUS. I think the expression of both the narrower and broader opinions is good in case SCOTUS agrees with the majority and, also, wants to look at the broader interpretation. Of course, they may just throw it all out and consider no opinion put forth.
* The ruling on Friday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit throws a wrench in President Donald Trump’s trade agenda, and leaves his “reciprocal tariffs” in limbo.
* Trump has said that he will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
* Trump’s sector-specific tariffs, including on copper and steel, remain safe from the ruling, potentially foreshadowing a new trade playbook Trump could use if his “reciprocal tariffs” are blocked.
According to Perplexity, there are "at least" five cases going: Dinky linky.
This got me thinking about Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer: YADL.
In particular I was thinking about Justice Robert Jackson's opinion and found the following:
Jackson's opinion took a similarly flexible approach to the issue by eschewing any fixed boundaries between the powers of Congress and the President. His framework would influence future Supreme Court cases on the president's powers and the relation between Congress and the presidency.[5] He divided Presidential authority towards Congress into three categories (in descending order of legitimacy):
When the President acts with Congressional authorization, express or implied authority from Congress, "his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.”[6] When the President acts "in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain.”[7] Cases in which the President was defying congressional orders "his power is at its lowest ebb." The Court can sustain his actions “only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject.”[8]
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings that the "familiar tripartite scheme" above has since been called "the accepted framework for evaluating executive action" by the Supreme Court.[9]
This link expands on Justice Jackson's second point as quoted above:
When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measure on independent responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.
I expect this Supreme Court to drive a truck through the "imponderables."
I expect this Supreme Court to drive a truck through the "imponderables."
I won't be surprised, either. The Orange Behemoth has packed that court. Nothing but a few particular deaths along with some actual leadership is going to fix this. (Is he dead yet?)
ISTM the court has made a wise decision not to adopt the concurrence as the court opinion. That would serve as an invitation for the current Supreme Court to rule on further expanding presidential power. Instead, we have a somewhat narrow ruling on the specifics of this case, of these particular tariffs. While the SC can always broaden the issue on its own, it will have to push that door open; it has not yet been opened.
If so, it is good to know that in legal terms this was, perhaps, the right avenue for the court to follow. Unfortunately, in this case, what is good for the (judicial) goose is not good for the (market) gander. Imo, the way it came out adds even more uncertainty for the already rattled business community.
I guess, we will see how things unfold next week. As that CNBC article had put it:
The ruling injects a heavy dose of uncertainty into a central tenet of Trump’s economic agenda, which has rattled the global economy since April.
and, worse,
The Trump administration is reportedly planning to expand its sector-specific tariffs, including those on steel and aluminum, as a way of skirting the looming legal battles, according to The Wall Street Journal.
On a side note, could any of the jurists here shed some light on whether CIT will now take up the vacated and remanded injunction issue - potentially, reinstating it on review - or will everyone simply wait for the SCOTUS appeal of this decision to resolve the matter?
In the unlikely event the supremes hand down a judgement that shithead does not like, he will just ignore it and then fire the justices who had the temerity to stand up for the rule of law. Anyone doubt this ? If you doubt this you haven’t been paying attention.
Federal judges have lifetime appointments. They cannot be fired. They can only be impeached and convicted - a political process.
Count me among the skeptics about Trump firing federal judges. Attempting, sure. But firing, no way.
Still, it used to be that, given a scandal or two, even a SC justice could be pressured into resigning (see Abe Fortas). These days, they won't let go of a court position until it is pried from their cold dead hands (see Clarence Thomas).
Regarding CIT - since it went out of its way to justify the injunction after issuing its ruling, it seems likely to again justify the injunction. Though in accordance with CASA (the ruling on birthright citizenship), CIT may find issuing an injunction across all 50 states problematic. Only a handful of states were plaintiffs and CASA tends to restrict relief to actual plaintiffs (though it does permit class actions).
Perhaps products imported into Georgia could be subjected to tariffs while products passing through New York would be shielded (NY is one of the plaintiffs). Yes, that sounds absurd.
@msf. Surely some of the stuff shithead had pulled off already is not legal and he is just getting started . He is like a runaway train going downhill. Nothing and nobody to stop him. I hope you are right and I am wrong.
Regarding CIT - since it went out of its way to justify the injunction after issuing its ruling, it seems likely to again justify the injunction.
Oh, so it is possible that we might get the injunction back before SCOTUS takes up the appeal... Any projections on the relative timelines - i.e., how quickly CIT might rule on this vs how long it would take for SCOTUS to act?
Also, the Appeals Court seems to have implicitly reprimanded CIT for not directly addressing the four (listed) eBay factors in its original ruling as well as, apparently, not doing so comprehensively in the follow up response. The AC ruling seems to suggest that satisfying these is essential to the imposition of any such injunctions. Any thoughts on why CIT might have foregone doing so in the first place - i.e., is it the case that CIT would have (had) trouble justifying the injunction based on this four-factor test?
@msf. Surely some of the stuff shithead had pulled off already is not legal and he is just getting started . He is like a runaway train going downhill. Nothing and nobody to stop him. I hope you are right and I am wrong.
Appeals Court seems to have implicitly reprimanded CIT for not directly addressing the four (listed) eBay factors in its original ruling as well as, apparently, not doing so comprehensively in the follow up response.
Here we have another instance of the Circuit Court saying "We need not decide". The Court is not saying that the District Court failed to check all the boxes in its follow up. Rather, if it turns out that the universal (nationwide) injunction is prohibited by CASA then whether the District Court checked all the boxes, and whether it did so in a procedurally correct way are moot questions.
We need not decide whether the CIT abused its discretion by only articulating its analysis of the eBay factors some days after it issued its original opinion on the merits.... Nor need we evaluate the sufficiency of the CIT’s explanation.
The Circuit Court goes on to make clear that the threshold question, before considering the eBay factors (which the District Court may or may not have already done sufficiently), is whether a universal (nationwide) injunction is consistent with CASA (generally limiting injunctive relief to the plaintiffs).
On remand, the CIT should consider in the first instance whether its grant of a universal injunction comports with the standards out lined by the Supreme Court in CASA.
I would have thought that the District Court already did that in its follow up. As I wrote in my previous post, limiting relief to only the plaintiff states would lead to an absurd result. The District Court put it in more legal terms by invoking the Uniformity Clause (Article I Section 8 Clause 1) of the Constitution. That says that tariffs cannot be applied unequally depending strictly on the location (e.g. state) in which the tariffs are applied.
All I can guess here is that the Circuit Court is remanding so that the District Court can explicitly connect the dots. Though I'm sure I'm missing something else.
I expect this Supreme Court to drive a truck through the "imponderables."
I won't be surprised, either. The Orange Behemoth has packed that court. Nothing but a few particular deaths along with some actual leadership is going to fix this. (Is he dead yet?)
Immature, irresponsible, TDS, and posted on an investment forum. I'm surprised the owner of this site let you post hateful stuff like that.
I expect this Supreme Court to drive a truck through the "imponderables."
I won't be surprised, either. The Orange Behemoth has packed that court. Nothing but a few particular deaths along with some actual leadership is going to fix this. (Is he dead yet?)
Immature, irresponsible, TDS, and posted on an investment forum. I'm surprised the owner of this site let you post hateful stuff like that.
Those who invoke and/or constantly bleat 'TDS' 'TDS' TDS' are often the ones suffering the most from it and the cult mentality ....not just here, but in other forums, media, and networks.
Those who invoke and/or constantly bleat 'TDS' 'TDS' TDS' are often the ones suffering the most from it and the cult mentality ....not just here, but in other forums, media, and networks.
if it turns out that the universal (nationwide) injunction is prohibited by CASA then whether the District Court checked all the boxes, and whether it did so in a procedurally correct way are moot questions.
True, but CASA is a very new (interpretation of) law with little precedent to base decisions on and potential implications that appear patently absurd. Please correct me if otherwise, but this would seem to imply that any estimate of whether CASA would allow for a universal tariff injunction in this case would not get better than a 50-50 chance.
On the other hand, the eBay standard looks to be relatively well-established. So, my point was that, since CASA ruling (June 27, 2025) was not in effect when CIT judgement was granted (May 28, 2025), the eBay factors should have been used by CIT as the primary basis for the injunction by "explicitly connecting the dots".
Yet, according to CA,
The CIT did not address the eBay factors in its original opinion.
Taken together with what "CIT explained" in that subsequent order, generously referenced in the CA ruling as
CIT ... articulating its analysis of the eBay factors some days after it issued its original opinion on the merits,
though that discussion looks to have barely touched upon at most 3 of the 4 eBay factors, much less complied with the standard set by CA as:
The four factors a plaintiff must establish to secure a permanent injunction
this appears to suggest that the four factors were not fully addressed by CIT even after the follow up and CA does want these reviewed more explicitly:
remand for the CIT to reevaluate the propriety of granting injunctive relief and the proper scope of such relief, after considering all four eBay factors and the Supreme Court’s holding in CASA.
Yes, CASA might need to be considered "in the first instance", but firmly establishing the four eBay factors would also be necessary for any putative lifting of the abeyance. So, the point at issue remains that if these factors were so fundamentally pertinent to the case and essential for granting the injunctive relief - even before CASA issue had come up - why CIT did not directly validate their satisfaction in its original ruling.
All of this leads to the main question: Would CIT have had trouble justifying the injunction primarily on the basis of eBay factors and, if so, would a new injunction or lifting of abeyance not be forthcomingregardless of any (highly unpredictable) CASA implications?
I expect this Supreme Court to drive a truck through the "imponderables."
I won't be surprised, either. The Orange Behemoth has packed that court. Nothing but a few particular deaths along with some actual leadership is going to fix this. (Is he dead yet?)
Immature, irresponsible, TDS, and posted on an investment forum. I'm surprised the owner of this site let you post hateful stuff like that.
Those who invoke and/or constantly bleat 'TDS' 'TDS' TDS' are often the ones suffering the most from it and the cult mentality ....not just here, but in other forums, media, and networks.
I don’t think so. I’m just one voice here, while many of you constantly turn investment discussions into politics. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen the same person call for the president’s death. That may not seem unusual to some, but to anyone with common sense, it crosses the line. I was hoping at least one of you would acknowledge that—but it seems not.
Comments
The Supreme Court's ultimate adjudication of this case will be interesting to watch.
"A divided U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday that most of Donald Trump's tariffs are illegal,
undercutting the Republican president's use of the levies as a key international economic policy tool.
The court allowed the tariffs to remain in place through October 14 to give the Trump administration
a chance to file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court."
"'It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice
and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs,'" the ruling said.
'The statute neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards
that contain clear limits on the President’s power to impose tariffs.'"
And most importantly, does Trump's head explode if he cannot have his way?
As other's have stated, more chaos and uncertainty for business and investors.
https://reuters.com/legal/government/most-trump-tariffs-are-not-legal-us-appeals-court-rules-2025-08-29/
That about sums it up. Now waiting for a suit against the entire Federal Circuit Court as having made a "direct assault on the President’s ability to" conduct foreign affairs.
Analogous to the suit against the Maryland district court judges for its ruling constituting "direct assault on the President’s ability to enforce the immigration laws".
https://apnews.com/article/trump-lawsuit-maryland-judges-dc9c203cfc4ca37814179d2b220e361f
Also, there is this bit [corrected per msf post below]: So, it is not about "the tariffs", but what kind [or instances, per msf] of tariffs.
They are now going to argue about what
kindsort of tariffs are or are not allowed. And, because this was not a straight party-line decision, it will make it that much harder to predict how and when the SCOTUS votes.All of this means a lot more uncertainty for the market is coming...
At least they had the good sense to release this decision on Friday after market and before a holiday weekend. Else, with market tanking on today's announcement of core PCE rising 2.9% in July and highest since February, we might have had another 'Liberation Day'-scale week of fun... Not to say that next week will not be.
This is the actual text, similar to, but not identical to, what was given as a verbatim quote: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105.159.0_1.pdf
The court is not avoiding deciding the kind of tariffs that are permissible or impermissible. That was never in question. At issue were whether specific instances (not kinds) of tariffs imposed by particular executive orders were legal.
The court did what courts generally do: address specific question(s) raised and not make sweeping pronouncements.
All but the four dissenting judges signed on to the majority opinion. That is, seven judges approved the decision in full. See p. 4 for the names of the seven judges who joined in the opinion.
Then look at the concurrence by four of the judges (p. 47). It begins:
"We join the majority opinion in full." There is no split.
They go on to say: Okay, there's the word "type". I read it broadly, not literally as "kind", but perhaps as "size" or "breadth of scope". The majority opinion says that "we discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs of the magnitude of the Reciprocal Tariffs and Trafficking Tariffs. " Perhaps inconsequential, de minimis tariffs (of whatever kind) could slide through.
OJ
However, the basic premise remains the same: whether they are talking about instances or kinds, they are prolonging the the debate by devolving the issue into more and more elements, which is exacerbating uncertainty - markets' worst poison.
And lest you come back with the court did what courts generally do, I would argue "No" because they had 2 other options:
1. "Plurality" on the Left (4 judges): (p. 47).
2. "Plurality" on the Right (4 judges): (p. 64)
Either one of those options would have been better than prolonging this investigation of specific types, kinds, magnitudes or whatever other qualifiers might be applied to the particular set of tariffs in question as the matter will end up being decided at SCOTUS regardless of which side prevailed in this round.
Alas, this was indeed a 4-3-4 decision - or, more accurately [4-3]-4 - where one of the "wings", the Left wing in this case, had decided to compromise and join the "center" to get a majority opinion out. Unfortunately, as is the case with most compromises that do not ultimately solve the problem, this one ended up worsening the underlying predicament not just for the legal world but for the world at large.
A decision is a plurality decision when fewer than a majority of judges sign onto it. That's not the situation (dare I say "case"?) here. A majority of the judges completely agreed with the reasoning. That's not a compromise to "go along".
In cases in which one or more judges say they agree with the result but would go further (as here), a majority fails to exist only when the concurring judges give a different rationale for the outcome of the case. That disagreement manifests when the concurring judges fail to sign onto the court opinion.
A good discussion of majority vs concurrence can be found here:
https://dnmrs.com/articles/concurring_dissenting_opinions_court_appeals_0722.html
It goes into a case, Greene v. Esplanade Venture Partnerships, 36 N.Y.3d 513, 526-48 (2021),, where the concurring judges opine that “The Court has missed the moment” to expand a narrow ruling (quote is from Greene).
The concurring judges would have discarded the court reasoning and replaced it with a different, broader rationale. They agreed with the outcome but did not sign onto the court opinion.
In contrast, the concurring judges here agree with the reasoning applied. They state that in addition to the specifics of this case, they would apply the reasoning more broadly. The majority does not disagree with this; it just avoids the question as being unnecessary to resolve.
Simple logic. If one claims a universal fact, as the government here claimed that the president could impose unlimited tariffs, all that is needed to refute that claim is a single counterexample (the tariffs in question). One does not need to "prove" the inverse, viz. the government can never impose any tariffs unilaterally.
ISTM the court has made a wise decision not to adopt the concurrence as the court opinion. That would serve as an invitation for the current Supreme Court to rule on further expanding presidential power. Instead, we have a somewhat narrow ruling on the specifics of this case, of these particular tariffs. While the SC can always broaden the issue on its own, it will have to push that door open; it has not yet been opened.
in practicality, nothing has changed nor will change.
a. this ruling is a stay, trump will rely on scotus and ignore if needed, congress continues to abandon its tariff mandate.
b. multiple other paths exist for trump to threaten\declare tariffs until he gets his cut.
there seems to be no concern regarding the economy during midterms, as trump will rely on his propaganda to lay blame, and his secret police to enforce fair elections.
* The ruling on Friday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit throws a wrench in President Donald Trump’s trade agenda, and leaves his “reciprocal tariffs” in limbo.
* Trump has said that he will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
* Trump’s sector-specific tariffs, including on copper and steel, remain safe from the ruling, potentially foreshadowing a new trade playbook Trump could use if his “reciprocal tariffs” are blocked.
This got me thinking about Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer: YADL.
In particular I was thinking about Justice Robert Jackson's opinion and found the following: This link expands on Justice Jackson's second point as quoted above: I expect this Supreme Court to drive a truck through the "imponderables."
I won't be surprised, either. The Orange Behemoth has packed that court. Nothing but a few particular deaths along with some actual leadership is going to fix this. (Is he dead yet?)
I guess, we will see how things unfold next week. As that CNBC article had put it: and, worse,
On a side note, could any of the jurists here shed some light on whether CIT will now take up the vacated and remanded injunction issue - potentially, reinstating it on review - or will everyone simply wait for the SCOTUS appeal of this decision to resolve the matter?
Count me among the skeptics about Trump firing federal judges. Attempting, sure. But firing, no way.
Still, it used to be that, given a scandal or two, even a SC justice could be pressured into resigning (see Abe Fortas). These days, they won't let go of a court position until it is pried from their cold dead hands (see Clarence Thomas).
Regarding CIT - since it went out of its way to justify the injunction after issuing its ruling, it seems likely to again justify the injunction. Though in accordance with CASA (the ruling on birthright citizenship), CIT may find issuing an injunction across all 50 states problematic. Only a handful of states were plaintiffs and CASA tends to restrict relief to actual plaintiffs (though it does permit class actions).
Perhaps products imported into Georgia could be subjected to tariffs while products passing through New York would be shielded (NY is one of the plaintiffs). Yes, that sounds absurd.
A discussion of CASA's implications for universal (nationwide) injunctions is here:
https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2025/07/supreme-court-substantially-limits-universal-injunctions
Also, the Appeals Court seems to have implicitly reprimanded CIT for not directly addressing the four (listed) eBay factors in its original ruling as well as, apparently, not doing so comprehensively in the follow up response. The AC ruling seems to suggest that satisfying these is essential to the imposition of any such injunctions. Any thoughts on why CIT might have foregone doing so in the first place - i.e., is it the case that CIT would have (had) trouble justifying the injunction based on this four-factor test?
Here we have another instance of the Circuit Court saying "We need not decide". The Court is not saying that the District Court failed to check all the boxes in its follow up. Rather, if it turns out that the universal (nationwide) injunction is prohibited by CASA then whether the District Court checked all the boxes, and whether it did so in a procedurally correct way are moot questions. The Circuit Court goes on to make clear that the threshold question, before considering the eBay factors (which the District Court may or may not have already done sufficiently), is whether a universal (nationwide) injunction is consistent with CASA (generally limiting injunctive relief to the plaintiffs). I would have thought that the District Court already did that in its follow up. As I wrote in my previous post, limiting relief to only the plaintiff states would lead to an absurd result. The District Court put it in more legal terms by invoking the Uniformity Clause (Article I Section 8 Clause 1) of the Constitution. That says that tariffs cannot be applied unequally depending strictly on the location (e.g. state) in which the tariffs are applied.
All I can guess here is that the Circuit Court is remanding so that the District Court can explicitly connect the dots. Though I'm sure I'm missing something else.
I'm surprised the owner of this site let you post hateful stuff like that.
On the other hand, the eBay standard looks to be relatively well-established. So, my point was that, since CASA ruling (June 27, 2025) was not in effect when CIT judgement was granted (May 28, 2025), the eBay factors should have been used by CIT as the primary basis for the injunction by "explicitly connecting the dots".
Yet, according to CA, Taken together with what "CIT explained" in that subsequent order, generously referenced in the CA ruling as though that discussion looks to have barely touched upon at most 3 of the 4 eBay factors, much less complied with the standard set by CA as: this appears to suggest that the four factors were not fully addressed by CIT even after the follow up and CA does want these reviewed more explicitly: Yes, CASA might need to be considered "in the first instance", but firmly establishing the four eBay factors would also be necessary for any putative lifting of the abeyance. So, the point at issue remains that if these factors were so fundamentally pertinent to the case and essential for granting the injunctive relief - even before CASA issue had come up - why CIT did not directly validate their satisfaction in its original ruling.
All of this leads to the main question: Would CIT have had trouble justifying the injunction primarily on the basis of eBay factors and, if so, would a new injunction or lifting of abeyance not be forthcoming regardless of any (highly unpredictable) CASA implications?