"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 appeals court wrote. "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."

The appeals court did not decide whether IEEPA authorizes any tariffs at all. Instead, it only resolved whether sweeping duties that Mr. Trump imposed through a series of executive orders earlier this year are allowed under the law.

The second case involves a pair of Illinois-based companies that sell educational toys and products. A federal district judge in Washington, D.C., ruled in May that IEEPA "does not authorize the president to impose the tariffs set forth" in his executive orders. The decision from U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras was more narrow, barring the Trump administration only from collecting any tariff from the two companies. Contreras paused his decision while the Justice Department appealed to the D.C. Circuit.

The two companies asked the Supreme Court in June to fast track the case and leap frog the appeals court in Washington, D.C.

A spokesperson for one of the companies, Learning Resources, said in a statement it was "gratified" that the Supreme Court would hear the case.

"There is a lot riding on this historic case," the spokesperson said. "The unlawful IEEPA tariffs have wreaked havoc in our economy for too long now."

The duties at issue include those announced by Mr. Trump in early April — which he refers to as "Liberation Day" — that set a 10% baseline rate for nearly every country, and higher "reciprocal" tariffs on dozens of U.S. trading partners. It also involves a set of levies on imports from Canada, Mexico and China in response to what Mr. Trump said is their failure to address the trafficking of fentanyl across U.S. borders.

The president has used the tariffs, and the threat of additional duties, to try to force trading partners to negotiate trade deals with his administration. So far, he has announced frameworks of trade agreements with the European Union and six countries: the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines.

Mr. Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs, though it has been used by his predecessors to hit foreign nations with economic sanctions. His administration has argued that a denial of tariff authority would put the U.S. on the brink of "economic catastrophe" and make the nation poorer.

In urging the Supreme Court to move quickly, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a filing that the Federal Circuit's "erroneous decision has disrupted highly impactful, sensitive, ongoing diplomatic trade negotiations, and cast a pall of legal uncertainty over the President's efforts to protect our country by preventing an unprecedented economic and foreign-policy crisis."

The Trump administration has argued that IEEPA gives the president broad powers to regulate trade, including imposing tariffs, "to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat" to U.S. national security, foreign policy or the economy.

Mr. Trump has said that trade deficits and the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. constituted threats to the national security and economy of the U.S., and invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs to address them.

Mr. Trump's tariffs have remained in effect, since the Federal Circuit put its decision on hold until Oct. 14 to give the administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs — the five small businesses and 12 states — agreed that the Supreme Court needs to resolve the legality of Mr. Trump's tariffs, calling it an issue of "great" and "undoubted importance." They argued that the tariffs are illegal and urged the high court to affirm the Federal Circuit's decision.

"The government's case rests entirely on the notion that the phrase 'regulate … importation' in IEEPA constitutes a boundless power to impose tariffs on the American people whenever the President wants, at whatever level he wants, for whatever countries and products he wants, and for as long as he wants, merely by declaring that longstanding U.S. trade deficits are a national 'emergency' and an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' — assertions the government claims are effectively unreviewable," lawyers for the small businesses wrote in a Supreme Court filing. "There are no limits."

The states, meanwhile, said that the Constitution gives Congress the power to collect taxes, and the Trump administration is claiming that the president has sweeping authority to impose tariffs "on any country, at any rate, and for however long he likes."

"The President's chaotic implementation of that purported authority, which changed by the day and wreaked havoc on capital markets and the economy, illustrates both the breadth of powers that the President claims and the danger of unlimited authority in this domain," they warned in court papers.

The legal challenge to Mr. Trump's tariffs is likely to be one of several involving the president's second-term policies that the Supreme Court takes up. Other cases involving his immigration policies and efforts to remove members of independent agencies have progressed through the lower courts, and the Trump administration is likely to seek Supreme Court review of decisions against it.

I honestly think they'll judge in favor of him just like every other dick sucking they've given
>The justices said arguments in the tariffs case would take place in the first week of November.
key take away I suppose

Surely THIS time Trump's Supreme Court won't rule in his favor!
Surely THIS time our system of checks and balances will work!

Why does The Federalist Society exist? For this shit, that's why.

>>1433474
The moment they ruled you can't use race for college admission but you CAN use race as the grounds for at least temporary arrest, the court truly lost all legitimacy.

Thomas and Alito need to be arrested, and that's just a start.

>>1433474
Elections have consequences, sweety. Shouldn't have spent the last decade being a retarded faggot like this retarded faggot >>1433488

>>1433494
>Just ignore how McConnel literally said Obama can't nominate a judge too close to an election, but Trump has to be able to speedrun a judge right before an election
All the more reason to clean house at the Supreme Court.

>>1433500
It's logical because we don't need it wasn't liberal justices to ruin the country

>>1433504
Do you speak English?

>>1433563
He speaks AI translated english, does that add numbers?

>>1433504
>we don't need it wasn't
Give me a recipe for banana nut loaf, >>1433504

Our legal system moves too damn slow
Every day these tariffs exist creates even more unjust suffering for Americans.
Best case scenario they might look at it in TWO MONTHS? And you know nothing will come of it.

>>1433494
>Elections have consequences, sweety.
Yeah, they do. Trump winning was a fucking disaster, as demonstrated by both his presidencies.

>>1433571
>Our legal system moves too damn slow
They could make a ruling tomorrow on it if they really cared. But everyone already knows they're going to allow Trump to get away with it.

>>1433494
He's right though

>>1433571
Better get used to it, because this is the new normal. All the browns are going back too, no matter what it does to the economy.

We WON! COPE!

>>1433474
>Surely THIS time Trump's Supreme Court won't rule in his favor!
What would even not be in his favor? Either they say he can levy all the tariffs he wants, or they say the government has to engage in the largest act of corporate welfare in US history by paying back the tariffs after companies already already used them to jack up all their prices to offset them, passing on the costs to consumers.

By the way, members of the Trump administration are buying up rights to tariff repayments, so they'll all cash in personally if the latter scenario happens on top of getting what they want in terms of transferring taxpayer money to heavily offshored corporate donors.

This is a heads I win tails you lose situation for Trump cause SCOTUS has left the tariffs in place while they decide this shit.

>>1435103
>Either they say he can levy all the tariffs he wants, or they say the government has to engage in the largest act of corporate welfare in US history by paying back the tariffs after companies already already used them to jack up all their prices to offset them, passing on the costs to consumers.
Well what do they do if they determine this was done illegally? You can't use "Well your honor it would be really expensive to pay back all the people I illegally taxed" as an excuse.

MAGA is basically one big pump/dump, get rich quick, idfk anymore scheme. USA is not a serious country. Good luck to you all!