https://www.instagram.com/...
Although 1 firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not ill) of the tariffs at issue in this case—-albeit perhaps with few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require.
Those statutes
include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and
301); and the Tarill Act of 1930 (Section 338). In essence, the Court today concludes that the President checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs.
In the meantime, however, the interim effects of the Court’s decision could be substantial. The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars
Although 1 firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not ill) of the tariffs at issue in this case—-albeit perhaps with few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require.
Those statutes
include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and
301); and the Tarill Act of 1930 (Section 338). In essence, the Court today concludes that the President checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs.
In the meantime, however, the interim effects of the Court’s decision could be substantial. The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars
09:15 PM - Feb 20, 2026
Only people mentioned by Ezekiel2_1 in this post can reply
