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

401–410 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#401

Post by genewitch »

jmyeet wrote: post #224
rayiner wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Tariff Act of 1930 reflects the duality between the President’s executive power to conduct foreign policy and Congress’s legislative power to set taxes. Until the early 20th century, tariffs were the primary mechanism for raising federal revenue. So Congress viewed tariffs as a tax, within Congress’s purview. But the 1930 Tariff Act also recognizes that tariffs are also a tool of foreign policy, which is within t…

This idea that the president has unrestricted ability to set foreign policy is an invention of this particular administration. In truth, powers are split between the executive and legislative branches [1]. Most notably, only Congress can declare war, which has been a real sticking point in the last century and why, for example, the Korean War wasn't technically a war (it was a "police action") and why the Vietnam War…

Chevron decision told Congress to do its fucking job and stop delegating it to the for-profit entities the regulations are supposed to apply to, unchecked.

The story of how it made it to the supreme court is a good one, about having to pay an inspector to ride on every fishing trip...

I don't see how this diminishes congressional power, unless you consider delegate count a sign of power.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#402

Post by rayiner »

heylook wrote: post #399
rayiner wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court’s power is limited to determining whether the President made a finding in the nature of the finding required by the law. What the court can’t do is then second guess that finding—analyzing it substantively to determine whether it is correct or not.

That's just not true. This case is a specific example of exactly the opposite. Read the opinion. It's literally a panel of federal court judges, one a Trump appointee, going through each justification and calling bullshit on each one.

Lower courts get decisions wrong all the time.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#403

Post by rayiner »

worik wrote: post #351
rayiner wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Surely there's a mechanism through the courts for someone to challenge illegal tariffs What you're describing is the Marbury tail wagging the Article II dog. The focus of the Constitution is allocation of power . The focus isn't creating a system where courts micromanage how the other two branches of government exercise that power. Marbury therefore goes to great lengths to draw lines between an executive's "minist…

> Here, the President did make a finding That is very interesting. It assumes that the president is truthful

It doesn’t! The relevant issue is allocation of power (who gets to make the finding), or the substantive merits of the finding itself.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#404

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #346
rayiner wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d love to live in a world where non-delegation was such a robust doctrine. But “you can set tariffs if you find that other countries are being unfair” (paraphrasing) is a more than intelligible principle supporting Congress’s delegation.

The case before the Court of International Trade failed on non-delegation and major questions grounds. But my point isn't that SCOTUS will affirm the lower court here (though: they will), but rather that your logic upthread doesn't hold. You said "the President makes foreign policy, not the courts". Plain category error.

Trump is knee-deep in negotiating with foreign countries on trade deals using the tariffs as leverage. And the court must purported to kneecap him. Of course it’s an exercise of the President’s foreign policy powers, and that’s why Congress gave the President this authority over tariffs in the 1930 act.

The major questions issue shows how out on a limb this court is. There’s currently a circuit split on whether MQD even applies to the president.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#405

Post by throw0101d »

margalabargala wrote: post #287
tptacek wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could say that, but they won't, because "unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid" is a straightforwardly justiciable question. Deciding whether things are "unequal" or "discriminatory" is almost exactly what courts are for.

Nearly every country that Trump tariffed does have some sort of tariff on the US. Canada has a sizable dairy tariff, for example. Whether that dairy tariff is particularly onerous on the US, worth antagonizing our closest ally for, that would be the political question, but certainly it's definitionally unequal.

> Nearly every country that Trump tariffed does have some sort of tariff on the US. Canada has a sizable dairy tariff, for example.

Canada has a dairy tariff after a certain volume is imported. The US has not hit that volume and so the tariffs are currently zero.

> Last year, Canada was the second-highest importer of U.S. dairy products, buying about $1.14 billion US, and it was the United States' top export market for eggs and related products.

* https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-canada-us-dairy-trade...

USMC also has a carve out for allowing more dairy imports:

* https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/unit...

It should also be noted that the US subsidizes its dairy farms, which could be considered an unfair advantage and justification for anti-dumping measures (Trump's logic for many Chinese imports, e.g., steel). So Canadian dairy products cannot compete in the US market because they're 'too expensive' compared to what US farmers are selling things at: is that fair?

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#406

Post by throw0101d »

worik wrote: post #345
bruce511 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like most things in life, tarifs can be used well, or used badly. Canada's Dairy Tariff is specifically designed to protect a specific local industry, which exists, is of national interest to keep, and which could come under threat from cheap alternatives imported from abroad. It's specific, targeted, and serves a valuable purpose. They have been in place a long time, and provide a stable trading environment making t…

Any Canadians here to comment on the milk tariff policies? I have spent ten days of my life in Canada and I learnt of the tariffs by news reports concerning people driving to USA, loading up on milk, coming home. Tariffs are not always stupid. But in most cases there is a better alternative. E.g. Canada could subsidise domestic milk producers. (We used to do that in New Zealand) There is a lot of nonsense talked abou…

> E.g. Canada could subsidise domestic milk producers. (We used to do that in New Zealand)

Like the US does? Isn't that just a race to the bottom then?

The Canadian supply management system means that those that purchase milk pay the amount needed to keep the Canadian dairy industry afloat. If you don't buy milk you don't pay.

With subsidies everyone pays, regardless of whether you use the product(s) or not.

Of course subsidies make the price cheaper, which helps with cost of living, which can be quite progressive (and often children are the ones that drink the most milk).

Further, the US subsidies milk even though its consumption has been falling for decades:

* http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2022/june/fluid-milk-con...

Which solution is better / "best"? I don't know.

(Am Canadian.)

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#407

Post by skissane »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #391
skissane wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have most favored nation status with most other countries, so they generally don't have any other nation that is getting better terms than we do. That's the point of the WTO. However, MFN status is full of exceptions. For many countries, the US could plausibly argue that they are being discriminated against despite having MFN status due to one of the exceptions to it

They would surely have to convince the court that the exceptions were "unreasonable" which would be a higher bar than just declaring that there is an exception (i.e. an exception for a specific reason is not "unreasonable")

> an exception for a specific reason is not "unreasonable"

I doubt it is that simple.

I don’t know how exactly judges are going to define “reasonable” in this specific area of law-but “reasonable” normally means not just that you have a reason, but also that the judge concludes it is a valid or good enough reason-and different areas of law often have different tests for deciding what reasons are valid or good enough

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#408

Post by skissane »

heylook wrote: post #397
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would surely have to convince the court that the exceptions were "unreasonable" which would be a higher bar than just declaring that there is an exception (i.e. an exception for a specific reason is not "unreasonable")

So many people in here are making the same mistake. The whole purpose of the courts is to decide whether some behavior does or does not fit within the confines of some statute. They don't just say "oh yeah whatever you say, go ahead." This very decision is just several instances of the court saying "the law says you can only tariff when X. you said X is true, but it's obviously not, so you can't tariff."

Right, but I think other people here may be making the opposite mistake-“according to my interpretation of the statute what the Trump admin has done isn’t allowed”-ultimately your or my interpretation doesn’t count, it is the courts

And I haven’t been arguing that the Trump admin is going to win-only that people are underestimating their chances. And even if I’m right about that, they still might lose anyway, and that fact in itself wouldn’t prove that I was wrong.

The fact that the attempt to introduce tariffs using one statute was overturned by this court, doesn’t mean the same court is automatically going to overturn those tariffs under a different statute - different texts, different tests, both the same outcome and the opposite outcome are entirely plausible

And as I said, I don’t actually think these tariffs are a good idea from a policy viewpoint - but that’s largely orthogonal to the question of what courts are going to do to them

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#409

Post by skissane »

awesome_dude wrote: post #369
skissane wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was stupid but also practically irrelevant-if an uninhabited territory has zero exports, you can set the tariff as high as you like, with no exports nobody is going to pay it. To be clear, I don’t agree with these tariffs and think they are a mistake, but I think we should focus on their real world harms not a silly administrative error We know how it happened: Heard and McDonald Islands is an uninhabited Austra…

Falkland Islands were also hit with a tariff that had little to do with the reality of a trade imbalance caused by anything other than they don't buy stuff. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ygx81gpg6o

> Falkland Islands were also hit with a tariff that had little to do with the reality of a trade imbalance caused by anything other than they don't buy stuff.

That they don’t buy stuff is only half the story. The other half is they export a lot of primary produce - to the US, primarily frozen fish. The US imports a lot of food so they are interested in Falklands fish. US exports are much higher up the value chain, and Falklands having such a small population has rather limited demand for those high value exports-hence the inevitable trade imbalance.

Which isn’t saying US tariffs on Falklands is good policy-I think it is stupid.

Compare a country like Australia-like Falklands, Australia exports a lot of stuff the US wants to buy. Unlike Falklands, Australia has a decent sized relatively well-off population, who buy a lot of stuff from the US-as a result, the US actually has a trade surplus with Australia. Now, of course, Australia is on a completely different scale from the Falklands: but my point is, if Falklands had a ratio of primary production to population closer to Australia’s, the US would quite possibly have a trade surplus with it too, albeit obviously a smaller one-Australia has around 7800 as many people as Falklands, but only 750 times the primary exports - meaning on a per capita basis, Falklands has around 10 times the primary exports of Australia.

Post reply on HN