Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#161

Post by irjustin »

mangoman wrote: post #146
wlesieutre wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He would have to convince the courts that I don't like having a trade deficit with anyone somehow means our trading partners are "placing a burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States by any of the unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid"

I don't think it requires the courts to agree - just that there's a burden or disadvantage and that it's in the "public interest" which seems like a pretty low bar to make up a story that sounds plausible. i think the idea that a trade deficit is a disadvantage is kinda brain dead, but it's plausible sounding enough to argue in court. throw in unequal tariff rates and it seems like an easier win than the IEEPA's emer…

> I don't think it requires the courts to agree

Eventually the courts have to agree/disagree if someone starts challenging it up the chain.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#162

Post by JumpCrisscross »

growlNark wrote: post #154
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also hate the concept of a "trade court". Where the fuck were you for the past 400 years? You’re describing a court whose history traces closer to the founding of our republic than to the present day [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Inter...

> You’re describing a court whose history traces closer to the founding of our republic than to the present day This is certainly no less damning. However, it is very illustrative of our colorful history: trade above humans!

> it is very illustrative of our colorful history: trade above humans

Seriously lost on what point you're trying to make. Is it a general diatribe against specialist courts, e.g. dedicated family and traffic courts?

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#166

Post by acdha »

billfor wrote: post #117
Imnimo wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the linked Biden press release I see an announcement of tariff changes under section 301 and section 232. From today's article: >Other tariffs imposed under different powers, like so-called Section 232 and Section 301 levies, are unaffected, and include the tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles. It seems that Biden did not, at least in the instance you link to, do the thing that the courts have ruled against…

The administration has previously contemplated imposing duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows for tariffs that counter unfair foreign trade practices. That is the provision Trump used to underpin his first term tariffs on China and is considered to be on firmer legal footing than IEEPA. So they'll likely just use that justification going forward.

They’ve already mentioned that in the EOs - it’s what Trump’s first administration used - but it’s more limited and slower than he wants. That requires them to follow a process where they identify a trade barrier and first attempt to negotiate it, and it’s limited to trade barriers. That’s a lot of work to use to demand concessions individually from each country world – these are not people who like to do their homework – and it doesn’t cover non-trade pretexts like fentanyl or failing to confiscate some Vietnamese farmers’ land so his family can build a golf course and resort. Once they concede that it has to follow the usual legal process, they’re going to have to give up the most appealing ways to monetize his office.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#167

Post by Aurornis »

mangoman wrote: post #146
wlesieutre wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He would have to convince the courts that I don't like having a trade deficit with anyone somehow means our trading partners are "placing a burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States by any of the unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid"

I don't think it requires the courts to agree - just that there's a burden or disadvantage and that it's in the "public interest" which seems like a pretty low bar to make up a story that sounds plausible. i think the idea that a trade deficit is a disadvantage is kinda brain dead, but it's plausible sounding enough to argue in court. throw in unequal tariff rates and it seems like an easier win than the IEEPA's emer…

> think the idea that a trade deficit is a disadvantage is kinda brain dead, but it's plausible sounding enough to argue in court.

If you think it’s a terrible argument, why do you think the courts would think otherwise?

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#169

Post by myko »

lenerdenator wrote: post #111
firesteelrain wrote: post #26

It’s not the end of this saga. Prior administrations, Republican and Democrat, have enacted tariffs without additional congressional approval.

True, though none have done it this aggressively and this aimlessly. The Trumpist era can be defined by someone pushing the limits of power to see just how far they can go. It can also be defined by the importance of the bottom line. In this case the former threatens the latter, so there are forces gathering to actually push back.

> True, though none have done it this aggressively and this aimlessly.

or illegally!

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#170

Post by wlesieutre »

rayiner wrote: post #151
wlesieutre wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He would have to convince the courts that I don't like having a trade deficit with anyone somehow means our trading partners are "placing a burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States by any of the unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid"

He doesn’t have to convince the courts of that. The President makes foreign policy, not the courts. As long as the President is plausibly exercising a foreign policy power Congress gave him, the courts don’t get to reweigh the evidence and decide for themselves whether the trade deficits result from other countries placing trade barriers or something else.

Why does the law list specific conditions in which the president can apply the law if the president can apply it for any reason he wants?

Surely there's a mechanism through the courts for someone to challenge illegal tariffs on their imports if the president declares "There's a 50% tariff on everything because I woke up in a bad mood today and it's unfair of other countries to be doing that."

Post reply on HN