Neal Katyal

@neal_katyal

Just found out: we won the tariffs case. President Trump’s tariffs are illegal. More to come.

4:25 AM · Aug 30, 2025

·

31.5K

Views

https://x.com/neal_katyal/status/1961540615444775161

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767584&forum_id=2most#49222598)

wtf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767584&forum_id=2most#49222603)

@RpsAgainstTrump

·

13m

🚨🚨BREAKING: Most of Trump’s global tariffs ruled illegal by U.S. appeals court

We have no kings in America 🇺🇸🇺🇸

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767584&forum_id=2most#49222612)

Business

Federal appellate court upholds ruling striking down Trump's tariffs

Ben Berkowitz

facebook (opens in new window)

twitter (opens in new window)

linkedin (opens in new window)

email (opens in new window)

Donald Trump in a dark coat and red tie holding a chart titled "Reciprocal Tariffs" displaying tariff percentages charged to the U.S.A. versus discounted tariffs for various countries.

President Trump holding a list of tariffs. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

A federal appellate court on Friday upheld a lower-court ruling invalidating the bulk of President Trump's sweeping global tariffs.

Why it matters: The ruling could quickly upend the global trade order Trump has built, cutting off a major new source of cash for the government and raising huge questions about what businesses are supposed to do next.

Catch up quick: In late May, the Court of International Trade ruled Trump did not have the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, as he has done this year.

A federal appellate court subsequently stayed that ruling, and held a hearing on the dispute in late July.

By the numbers: The tariff program is now generating about $30 billion a month in revenue, with expectations that would quickly grow after Trump imposed new rates on Aug. 1.

What they're saying: Trump, in an Aug. 8 Truth Social post, warned of serious consequences if a court ruling cut off that revenue.

"It would be 1929 all over again, a GREAT DEPRESSION! If they were going to rule against the wealth, strength, and power of America, they should have done so LONG AGO, at the beginning of the case, where our entire Country, while never having a chance at this kind of GREATNESS again, would not have been put in 1929 style jeopardy," Trump said.

Editor's note: This is breaking news. Check back for updates.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767584&forum_id=2most#49222613)

Order should be vacated anyway because they didn’t let Newman participate

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767584&forum_id=2most#49222646)

https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1812.OPINION.8-29-2025_2566151.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767584&forum_id=2most#49222640)

---

### **Majority Opinion (8 judges against Trump)**

* Held that **President Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)**.

* Reasoned that IEEPA allows the President to “regulate importation” in emergencies, but does **not explicitly authorize imposing tariffs or duties**.

* Emphasized that Congress has always used clear language when delegating tariff power (e.g., “duties,” “tariffs,” “taxes”), and IEEPA lacks such wording.

* Warned that accepting Trump’s interpretation would effectively grant the President **unlimited taxing authority**, contrary to the Constitution’s vesting of taxing power in Congress.

* Concluded that Trump’s “Trafficking Tariffs” (on Canada, Mexico, China) and “Reciprocal Tariffs” (on nearly all trading partners) were **unlawful**.

---

### **Dissenting Opinion (4 judges for Trump)**

* Argued that the term “regulate importation” in IEEPA is broad enough to include **tariffs as a regulatory tool**.

* Pointed to **past precedents** (such as Nixon’s temporary surcharges upheld in *Yoshida*) and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of similar language in the Trade Expansion Act (*Algonquin*), which allowed monetary measures to “adjust imports.”

* Emphasized that the **national emergency context** requires flexibility for the President to act decisively.

* Warned that the majority’s narrow interpretation **hampers presidential authority** to respond to economic and security threats through trade restrictions.

---

✅ **Bottom line:**

* **Majority (8 judges):** Trump’s tariffs under IEEPA were unconstitutional and unauthorized.

* **Dissent (4 judges):** Trump’s tariffs were valid under the broad emergency powers delegated by IEEPA.

Do you want me to create a **side-by-side comparison chart** so you can see the majority vs. dissent arguments more visually?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767584&forum_id=2most#49222644)

---

## 1. **Key Issue**

Whether the **International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)** allows a president to impose **broad, indefinite tariffs** on foreign imports in response to a declared emergency.

* **Majority (7 judges)**: “Regulate importation” ≠ tariff power. Congress must clearly delegate that, and IEEPA doesn’t.

* **Dissent (4 judges)**: “Regulate importation” is broad enough to include tariffs, especially in emergencies.

---

## 2. **SCOTUS Precedents**

* **Algonquin (1976)** – SCOTUS held that “adjust imports” in the Trade Expansion Act allowed the President to use monetary tools (fees). This favors Trump’s side, but that statute was explicitly about customs duties and was in Title 19 (“Customs Duties”), unlike IEEPA in Title 50 (“War and National Defense”).

* **Youngstown (1952)** – Steel seizure case: Presidential emergency powers must have clear congressional authorization. This favors the majority’s limit on Trump.

* **National Cable Television (1974)** – Court emphasized that **taxation is a core legislative function**; delegations must be explicit. Strong support for the majority’s reasoning.

---

## 3. **Current Court Dynamics**

* **Conservative justices** (Alito, Thomas, possibly Gorsuch, sometimes Barrett) tend to be sympathetic to **broad executive power in foreign affairs**.

* But **Gorsuch and Barrett** are also strong on **nondelegation and textualist limits**, meaning they may be wary of letting the President claim tax power without explicit words from Congress.

* **Roberts** has shown caution about executive overreach.

* **Kavanaugh** might lean toward executive flexibility in emergencies.

* **The liberal bloc (Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson)** would almost certainly side with limiting Trump, consistent with separation of powers.

---

## 4. **Likely Outcome**

* I’d project a **5–4 or 6–3 to affirm the Federal Circuit (against Trump)**.

* Likely affirming: Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, Gorsuch, possibly Barrett.

* Likely dissenting: Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh (maybe Barrett instead of Kavanaugh, depending).

The deciding factor will be whether the textual silence in IEEPA on “tariffs/duties” is fatal to Trump’s claim. Given SCOTUS’s repeated warnings that **taxation powers require clear delegation**, the odds favor **upholding the 7–4 Federal Circuit ruling**.

---

👉 Do you want me to also **model two scenarios** — one where SCOTUS affirms, one where it reverses — and outline what each would mean for presidential trade powers going forward?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767584&forum_id=2most#49222647)

“Clear” like in Obamacare

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767584&forum_id=2most#49223959)

NEAL KUMAR KATYAL, Milbank LLP, Washington, DC,

argued for plaintiffs-appellees V.O.S. Selections, Inc., Plastic Services and Products, LLC, MicroKits, LLC, FishUSA

Inc., Terry Precision Cycling LLC. Also represented by

SAMANTHA KINSELLA ILAGAN, COLLEEN ROH SINZDAK; PAUL

HAROLD, STEFFEN NATHANAEL JOHNSON, Wilson, Sonsini,

Goodrich & Rosati, PC, Washington, DC; MICHAEL W.

MCCONNELL, Palo Alto, CA; JAMES J. MCQUAID, Liberty

Justice Center, Arlington Heights, IL; JEFFREY MICHAEL

SCHWAB, REILLY STEPHENS, Austin, TX.

BENJAMIN N. GUTMAN, Oregon Department of Justice,

Salem, OR, argued for plaintiff-appellee State of Oregon.

Also represented by CHRISTOPHER PERDUE, LEIGH SALMON;

DUSTIN BUEHLER, Portland, OR.

BRETT SHUMATE, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendantsappellants. Also represented by BRADLEY HINSHELWOOD,

MICHAEL S. RAAB, SOPHIA SHAMS, DANIEL WINIK.

ILYA SOMIN, Law School, George Mason University, Arlington, VA, for plaintiff-appellee V.O.S. Selections, Inc.

JOSHUA BENDOR, Office of Arizona Attorney General,

Phoenix, AZ, for plaintiff-appellee State of Arizona. Also

represented by SYREETA TYRELL.

SARAH HUNTER WEISS, Colorado Department of Law,

Denver, CO, for plaintiff-appellee State of Colorado.

MICHAEL SKOLD, Office of the Attorney General, Hartford, CT, for plaintiff-appellee State of Connecticut.

IAN LISTON, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE, for plaintiff-appellee State of Delaware. Also represented by VANESSA L. KASSAB.

SARAH A. HUNGER, Office of Illinois Attorney General,

Chicago, IL, for plaintiff-appellee State of Illinois.

VIVIAN MIKHAIL, Office of the Maine Attorney General,

Augusta, ME, for plaintiff-appellee State of Maine.

PETER FARRELL, Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, for plaintiff-appellee State of Minnesota.

HEIDI PARRY STERN, Office of the Nevada Attorney

General, Las Vegas, NV, for plaintiff-appellee State of Nevada.

AMY SENIER, New Mexico Department of Justice, Santa

Fe, NM, for plaintiff-appellee State of New Mexico.

ESTER MURDUKHAYEVA, Office of the New York State

Attorney General, New York, NY, for plaintiff-appellee

State of New York. Also represented by RABIA MUQADDAM.

RYAN P. KANE, Vermont Office of the Attorney General,

Montpelier, VT, for plaintiff-appellee State of Vermont

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767584&forum_id=2most#49222814)

https://i.imgur.com/tZCgKy0.png

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767584&forum_id=2most#49222817)

SCOTUS can uphold this but it needs to be cleaned tf up and made sensible. They need to zero in on the emergency declaration and drop the fight over whether tariffs are form of a regulation. Concede that the POTUS has this authority, then find that he abused it. Let Kav write the majority opinion but issue it per curiam. Alito is the only wildcard and they can afford to lose him.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767584&forum_id=2most#49222856)

Dame of the Collar

@ShannonLeePerr1

·

3h

You lied to the Judges and didn’t win anything

I’m saying that the Appeal Court wasn’t briefed properly regarding 9 additional Tariff Resolutions that Uphold

@realDonaldTrump

Reciprocal Tariff, and War Time Tariff powers.

Specifically the 1934 Roosevelt Reciprocal Tariff

And 1789 Tariff for purposes of raising Federal Revenue , Promoting Domestic Manufacturing

Established tariffs as a primary revenue source for the U.S. government before the income tax (post-1913)

And Tariff Acts of 1792–1816

• Purpose: Between 1792 and 1816, approximately 25 tariff acts were passed, primarily for financial purposes rather than industrial protection. These acts adjusted customs duties to meet federal budget needs.

And Tariff of 1828 (Tariff of Abominations)

• Purpose: Championed by Henry Clay’s Whig Party, it imposed high tariffs to protect nascent U.S. industries, particularly in the North, arguing that “infant industries” needed shielding from more efficient European competitors.

And 4. Walker Tariff of 1846

• Purpose: Enacted under President James K. Polk, it united agricultural and rural factions to lower tariffs to a “revenue-only” level (around 25%), aiming to avoid favoritism to specific economic sectors.

And 5. Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of 1922

• Purpose: Passed to protect American farmers and industries post-World War I, as European agricultural recovery reduced U.S. export markets. It raised average import duties to about 40% and gave the President authority to adjust tariffs by up to 50% to balance foreign and domestic production costs.

And 6. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930

• Purpose: Signed by President Herbert Hoover against economists’ advice, it raised tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods by about 20% to protect U.S. farmers and industries during the early Great Depression. Sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley, it aimed to boost domestic employment.

And 7. Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934

• Purpose: Signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, it shifted tariff-setting authority from Congress to the President, allowing tariff reductions of up to 50% through bilateral trade agreements without further congressional approval. It aimed to reverse Smoot-Hawley’s damage and promote trade liberalization.

And 8. Trade Expansion Act of 1962

• Purpose: Granted the President authority to negotiate tariff reductions of up to 80% to promote trade liberalization, particularly in response to global economic integration.

And 9. Trade Act of 1974

• Purpose: Allowed the President to strike trade deals with congressional objectives, subject to a fast-track, unamendable up-or-down vote. Section 201 permits tariffs after a U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) finding of an import surge threatening domestic industries. Section 301 authorizes tariffs on countries restricting U.S. commerce in “unjustifiable” ways.

****

Our beautiful leader was yet again let down by incompetent people: "the Appeal Court wasn’t briefed properly regarding 9 additional Tariff Resolutions that Uphold

@realDonaldTrump

Reciprocal Tariff, and War Time Tariff powers."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767584&forum_id=2most#49223539)

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/court-extends-suspension-98-year-old-us-circuit-judge-newman-2025-08-29/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767584&forum_id=2most#49223748)

Also cons: “ all of these judges are totally biased against Trump and unfair!”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767584&forum_id=2most#49258181)