| ▲ | apexalpha 8 hours ago |
| It's odd to me that something as fundamental as 'can the President unilaterally impose tariffs on any country he wants anytime he wants' is apparently so ill defined in law that 9 justices can't agree on it. |
|
| ▲ | mastax 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It seems likely to me the ruling took this long because John Roberts wanted to get a more unanimous ruling. Additionally, the law in this case isn’t ill defined whatsoever. Alito, Thomas, and to a lesser extent Kavanaugh are just partisan hacks. For many years I wanted to believe they had a consistent and defensible legal viewpoint, even if I thought it was misguided. However the past six years have destroyed that notion. They’re barely even trying to justify themselves in most of these rulings; and via the shadow docket frequently deny us even that barest explanation. |
| |
| ▲ | pdpi 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > For many years I wanted to believe they had a consistent and defensible legal viewpoint, even if I thought it was misguided. Watching from across the Atlantic, I was always fascinated by Scalia's opinions (especially his dissents). I usually vehemently disagreed with him on principle (and I do believe his opinions were principled), but I often found myself conceding to his points, from a "what is and what should be are different things" angle. | | |
| ▲ | Nicook 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Scalia wrote some really interesting opinions for sure. Feel like the arguments are only going to get worse :( | |
| ▲ | Rapzid 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Amy Coney Barrett has somewhat taken up the mantel, but her legal reasoning is probably superior. Thomas wants to pretend he's the OG originalist, but I don't think he is anywhere near Barrett's peer. |
| |
| ▲ | bradleyjg 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Kavanaugh clearly isn’t in the same bucket. His votes go either way. I don’t recall seeing a single decision this administration where either Alito or Thomas wrote against a White House position. Not just in case opinions but even in an order. I don’t think we’ve seen a justice act as a stalking horse for the president in this way since Fortas. | | |
| ▲ | legitster 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Kavanaugh strikes me as principled, but in kind of a Type-A, "well, actually" sort of way where he will get pulled into rabbit holes and want to die on random textual hills. He is all over the map, but not in a way that seems consistent or predictable. | | |
| ▲ | llbeansandrice 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | His dissent in this case was basically "Don't over turn the tariffs because it will be too hard to make everyone whole" Which doesn't strike me as "principled" at all. Wasn't it JFK who said "We choose to Not do these things bc they're kinda hard actually"? /s | | |
| ▲ | Rapzid 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That is not the thrust of his argument; he believes they were legal. I don't think we need people spreading this uninformed meme all over HN. | |
| ▲ | dboreham 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is nonsense, and the same nonsense as we heard in the insurrectionist ruling. Allowing fascism "Because it's inconvenient to do otherwise" is bonkers. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | brendoelfrendo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Kavanaugh votes either way, but I don't think this is out of principle... I just think he's just kind of an idiot and thinks he can write a justification for just about any of his biases without making those biases obvious. It's kind of apparent if you read his opinions; they tend to be very verbose (his dissent here is 63 pages!) without saying a whole lot, and he gets sloppy with citations, selectively citing precedent in some cases while others he simply hand-waves. Take his opinion in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo (the "Kavanaugh stop" case): there's a reason why no one joined his concurrence. | |
| ▲ | metalliqaz 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | His reputation will be forever tarnished by "Kavanaugh stops" | | | |
| ▲ | ruszki 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You need to be cautious with the notion of “his votes go either way”. In Hungary, where I’m from, and a Trump kinda guy rules for 16 years, judges vote either way… but they vote against the government only when it doesn’t really matter for the ruling party. Either the government wants a scapegoat anyway why they cannot do something, or just simply nobody cares or even see the consequences. Like the propaganda newspapers are struck down routinely… but they don’t care because nobody, who they really care about, see the consequences of those. So judges can say happily that they are independent, yet they are not at all. This fake independence works so well, that most Hungarians lie themselves that judiciary is free. | |
| ▲ | zeroonetwothree 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Weren’t Sotomator and Jackson the same with Biden? Kagan is much more principled. | | |
| ▲ | bradleyjg 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In major case, sure. But every last emergency petition? I don’t think so. | |
| ▲ | bonsai_spool 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Weren’t Sotomator and Jackson the same with Biden? Kagan is much more principled Very respectfully, there is no comparison between Trump and Biden in this respect. Indeed, the court adopted a new legal concept, the Major Questions Doctrine, to limit Biden continuing the Trump student loan forbearance. | | |
| ▲ | twoodfin 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Major Questions Doctrine has been a thing for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_questions_doctrine | | |
| ▲ | bonsai_spool 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The Major Questions Doctrine has been a thing for decades: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_questions_doctrine I've read the Wikipedia page before and also reviewed it before posting, but thanks for your insightful analysis. Care to share when it was used in the majority before the current Roberts court? | | |
| ▲ | tyre 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. is an example of the same principle without the name (afaik it wasn’t named that until later.) Basically the FDA tried to use its powers to regulate drugs and devices to regulate nicotine (drug) via cigarettes (device.) The conservatives on the court said, in effect, “look obviously congress didn’t intend to include cigarettes as a medical device, come on.” Then Congress passed a specific law allowing the FDA to regulate cigarettes. This is how it should work. If congress means something that’s a stretch, they should say so specifically. | | |
| ▲ | bonsai_spool 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think that's a fair example but it had the wrinkle that an FDA commissioner explicitly changed what the Agency's position on tobacco regulation was [1]. I don't have as much time to offer a similar assessment of the first two 'official' Major Questions Doctrine cases in the Biden administration, but neither was nearly as contentious as the FDA reversing its prior position. For this reason, I see this decision as an argument against an agency changing course from an accepted previous (but not Congressionally defined) perspective. However, Chevron—at least according to interviews with lawmakers responding to the 'MQD' usage—ran counter to what the supposed understanding of how agency work would function. Again, I can find primary sources later. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/22/us/high-court-holds-fda-c... | | |
| ▲ | hluska 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the court adopted a new legal concept You phrased something very poorly. Someone replied and you moved the goalposts; claiming that you were actually referring to the majority using a concept. And now you’ve moved the goalposts again. I don’t know why you’re doing backflips to avoid admitting that you were wrong. | | |
| ▲ | bonsai_spool an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Indeed, the court adopted a new legal concept I wasn't wrong - the first time the concept was named in a decision was in the Biden administration. It sounds like you're not actually reading any of these, or aware of this issue? I do agree that the idea that some agency actions should be used appeared in the case OP cited. But it's obvious that SCOTUS is using this concept much more broadly now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | blackjack_ 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Alito is one of the original proponents of the unitary executive theory (way before he was a Supreme Court justice). Everything he does should be looked at as an attempt to impose said theory and destroy America. | | |
| ▲ | anthonypasq 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | its truly bizarre that anyone with this view could get approved by congress. its so antithetical to the entire american political system. just blows my mind how spineless congress as an institution has been for decades. |
| |
| ▲ | jasondigitized 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | When all of your decisions can be predetermined without even knowing the context of the matter you are surely a hack. It goes like this.....'Does this matter benefit Trump, corporations, rich people or evangelicals?'. Yes? Alito and Thomas will argue its lawful. Every single time. | |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | RetpolineDrama 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Extremely biased comment. The SC ruling today: 1) Does not stop the president from enacting tariffs, at all. The dissents even spelled out that no actual change would come from this ruling. 2) The ruling creates the absurd scenario where the president can (under this specific law) totally ban ALL imports from a country on whim, but not partially via tariffs. It's akin to being able to turn the AC on or off, but not being allowed to set the temperature. As usual, interesting discussion about the nuances of this ruling are happening on X. Reddit and HN comments are consistently low-signal like the above. | | |
| ▲ | tyre 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s not an absurd scenario. The law was written specifically to allow blocking imports from a country. The nuance is that nothing Congress passed granted to right to tax. Additionally, they did grant the power to partially block imports. Nothing says you have to enact “no imports from Japan” vs. “no imports of networking equipment from Lichtenstein.” | | |
| ▲ | RetpolineDrama 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | >The law was written specifically to allow blocking imports from a country. The precise wording is regulate. The idea that "regulate" means you can turn it on or off with no in-between is beyond parody. Absurd. Hilarious. Farcical. That said the headline is misleading and should be renamed, nothing is changing from this ruling. | | |
| ▲ | Starman_Jones 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The precise wording is "investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit..." |
|
| |
| ▲ | mexicocitinluez 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > discussion about the nuances of this ruling are happening on X I'm sure they are lol. | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | hinkley 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Thomas isn’t a hack, he’s a shill. And he’s not even trying to be subtle about it. He’s somebody’s bitch and he literally drives around in the toys they bought for him as compensation. If any justice deserves to be impeached it’s him. I can’t believe they approved him in the first place. Anita Hill sends her regards. | | |
| ▲ | MaysonL 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I remember being shocked, albeit not surprised, when I read that he had quite a lot of contact with Ron de Santis. https://americanoversight.org/email-suggests-that-supreme-co... | |
| ▲ | dyauspitr 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But the toys are so cheap. It can’t possibly be just a matter of the money, there has to be some blackmail involved. Either that or he was always self hating. | | |
| ▲ | evan_ 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why would there need to be bribery or blackmail involved? He's ideologically aligned with the goals of the republican party. His patrons lavish him with gifts because they don't want him to retire, not because they want a specific ruling. | | |
| ▲ | hinkley 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s the same thing. Keep doing exactly what we want you to do, or the money goes to someone who will. Which is also a message to the rest. |
| |
| ▲ | Rapzid 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Then why accept them and face the embarrassment of being found out not reporting them properly? You are correct compared to the $320k/year salary these empty nesters pull these things seem not that expensive. So why not just save up and buy them himself? Yes, RED FLAG. Because apparently he likes nice things and spending money so much he can't seem to afford them himself or forgo the gifts and spare himself the scandal. | |
| ▲ | hinkley 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | He was gifted a motor coach worth $80,000, and that’s just one of the bigger things he can’t launder. |
|
| |
| ▲ | buzzerbetrayed 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
|
|
| ▲ | cael450 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It really isn't ill-defined at all. Both the constitution and the law allowing the president to impose tariffs for national security reasons is clear. There are just some partisan hacks on the Supreme Court. |
| |
| ▲ | tyre 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This specific law does not allow imposing tariffs, which is the whole point of the ruling. Roberts’s opinion says that a tariff is essentially a tax, which is not what Congress clearly delegated. | |
| ▲ | nutjob2 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wrong law. Trump chose not to use the "impose tariffs for national security reasons" law in this case. |
|
|
| ▲ | Ajedi32 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Fully agree, but that's what happens when you keep piling laws on top of laws on top of laws and never go back and refactor. If I recall correctly, the case hinged on some vague wording in a semi-obscure law passed back in 1977. |
| |
| ▲ | philistine 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The whole legal apparatus of the US doesn't want to hear that but your laws suck. They're flawed because of the political system borne of compromise with parties incapable of whipping their members to just vote in favour of a law they don't fully agree with. | | |
| ▲ | epolanski 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is a global issue, laws aren't math formulas, law is interpreted, hence the need of judges. | |
| ▲ | vkou an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's the case in any country where a parliamentary body is split so closely. When you need every vote to get legislature to pass, because you control 51% of a chamber, backbenchers on the ideological fringe of a party, (DINOs and RINOs) have a lot of power. When you have a majority with comfortable margins, you can care a lot less about what the Sinemas and Manchins and McCains of a party think. |
| |
| ▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | rtkwe 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Old laws are often superseded or modified by newer legislation that's not novel or rare. This one wasn't because it hadn't been so roundly abused by previous presidents that it had been an issue worth taking up. It's the same with a lot of delegated powers, the flexibility and decreased response time is good when it's constrained by norms and the idea of independent agencies but a terrible idea when the supreme court has been slowly packed with little king makers in waiting wanting to invest all executive power in the President. [0] [0] Unless that's power over the money (ie Federal Reserve) because that's a special and unique institution. (ie: they know giving the president the power over the money printer would be disastrous and they want to be racist and rich not racist and poor.) | |
| ▲ | ssully 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Except that isn’t relevant at all. This Supreme Court is completely cooked. If the case was “can Trump dissolve New York as a state” you would still have 3 justices siding in his favor with some dog shit reasoning. | | |
| ▲ | Ajedi32 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Read the opinions. Both are pretty reasonable. I think the dissent has a good point that a plain language interpretation of the term "regulate imports" would seem to include tariffs. The bigger issue I think is that that statute exists in the first place. "Emergency powers" that a president can grant himself just by "declaring an emergency" on any pretense with no checks or balances is a stupid idea. | | |
| ▲ | stbede 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The original law (like many laws that delegated congressional authorities at the time) contained a legislative veto provision which gave the legislative final oversight of any administrative action. In the 80’s the Supreme Court found that legislative veto provisions were unconstitutional, but left all of those delegations standing. After that ruling, the administration can now do what it wanted without congressional oversight and the ability to veto any attempt to repeal the laws. In the oral arguments, Gorsuch raised the possibility that the law itself should have been found unconstitutional in the 80’s because the legislative veto was essential to its function. It looks like the court today took a minimalist approach, letting these delegations stand but minimizing the scope of the powers delegated. | |
| ▲ | rainsford an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not a lawyer, but I found the majority opinion's position on "regulate" much more compelling than the dissent. In particular, the majority's argument that "regulate" is a pretty common function of the executive branch that in no other context implies the authority to tax (tariff), which is a pretty clear Article I power. The majority also convincingly argued that it seems unreasonable to interpret a law to broadly delegate Congressional power to the Executive branch without Congress making that intent explicit in the law. The dissent not only didn't make good counter arguments even read by themselves, but the majority opinion did a pretty good job refuting those arguments specifically. | |
| ▲ | rkeene2 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well, not really because that part doesn't grant the US President arbitrary powers to perform any action that would result in regulation (for example, he is not given the power to go around killing random people even if doing so would effectively regulate international trade; he can't declare war on another country even if doing so would be the best way to effectuate regulation of trade with another country) it gives him the OBLIGATION to perform regulation, using the powers delegated to him. If giving the US President unlimited and arbitrary authority as long as they can claim it was useful for meeting a legal obligation created by Congress were the correct interpretation then we need look no further than the "Take Care" clause of the US Constitution, where the US President is given the obligation to take care that all laws are faithfully executed -- which, with this interpretation, would mean that any action would be under the purview of the US President as long as they could claim at doing that action resulted in the laws being faithfully executed. | |
| ▲ | rtkwe 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Only if you ignore the explicit grant to Congress in Article 1 Section 8... You're trying to argue an implicit grant somehow trumps an explicit grant. > The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C1-1-... | | |
| ▲ | k1ko 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's obviously not that simple. If we follow your logic then we would expect that no previous President was able to enact tariffs. We obviously know that to be false as Presidents in the past have enacted a wide range of tariffs. |
| |
| ▲ | twoodfin 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Indeed, if you want to case intuitional blame here, it’s far more Congress’ fault for forcing the court to split these linguistic hairs rather than address this issue head on themselves. | |
| ▲ | joezydeco 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Kavanaugh's opinion seems to say "well, this would be too hard to undo, so we should just leave it alone and let Trump continue". That hardly seems 'reasonable'. Just lazy and/or partisan. | | |
| ▲ | Ajedi32 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The plaintiffs argue and the Court concludes that the President lacks authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs. I disagree. In accord with Judge Taranto’s careful and persuasive opinion in the Federal Circuit, I would conclude that the President’s power under IEEPA to “regulate . . . importation” encompasses tariffs. As a matter of ordinary meaning, including dictionary definitions and historical usage, the broad power to “regulate . . . importation” includes the traditional and common means to do so—in particular, quotas, embargoes, and tariffs. That doesn't sound like "well, this would be too hard to undo" to me, and making that argument elsewhere doesn't diminish the main point. | |
| ▲ | bickfordb 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's hard for me to pay my taxes |
| |
| ▲ | PearlRiver 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In fairness Trump is the first guy who uses this cheatcode so blatantly. There used to be a kind of decorum. But yes it is basically eliminating parliament and rule by a monarch- making a mockery of 1776. |
| |
| ▲ | xienze 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > If the case was “can Trump dissolve New York as a state” you would still have 3 justices siding in his favor with some dog shit reasoning. As a counter-example, if the case was, say, "can a college use race as a factor in admissions"[0], you get 3 justices siding in favor using dogshit reasoning, just from the other side of the aisle. It's a bit ridiculous to think there aren't Democrat partisan judges on the Supreme Court. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v... | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | shevy-java 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It kind of shows that the USA does not have that strong means against becoming a dictatorship. George Washington probably did not think through the problem of the superrich bribing the whole system into their own use cases to be had. |
|
| ▲ | nitwit005 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They all agree. A couple of them just chose to pretend they didn't. |
|
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | entuno 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And that it took this long to get an answer to that question. |
| |
| ▲ | blibble 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | in the UK a similar unconstitutional behaviour by the head of government took... from the start of the "injury": - 8 days to get to the supreme court
- 2 days arguing in court
- 5 days for the court to reach a decision
15 days to be ruled onhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe... | | |
| ▲ | GeoAtreides 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Ah,yes, british constitutional law. In a country where no parliaments can bind its successors it means there is no constitution and the constitutional law is a polite fiction poorly held together with tradition and precedent. | | |
| ▲ | blibble 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | it's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the US system | | |
| ▲ | Freedom2 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The difference is that the US system is given by God, as commonly said by many Americans over the decades. And what power is greater than God? | | |
| |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | llm_nerd 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | All systems have weaknesses, but the utter criminal farce the US system has been betrayed to be yields a situation where zero Americans should be gloating about their constitution or values any more. Oh look, Trump just declared a new, 10% global tariff because lol laws. Congress is busted. There are essentially zero real laws for the plutocrat class. |
| |
| ▲ | petcat 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That was the fastest Supreme Court ruling in UK history though... Similarly in the US, Watergate (Nixon impeachment) took only 16 days, and Bush v. Gore (contested election) took just 30 days to reach a Supreme Court judgement. |
| |
| ▲ | loeg 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is relatively fast for an issue to move through the courts. | | |
| ▲ | kingofmen 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes. "Relatively". We really need a fast-track process for genuinely insane nonsense to get shot down in a matter of days, not months. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It takes a long time for something to get through all the appeals. Getting an injunction to put a stop to something during the appeals doesn't take that long. The problem in this case is that Congress made such a mess of the law that the lower court judges didn't think the outcome obvious enough to grant the injunction. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The problem in this case is that Congress made such a mess of the law that the lower court judges didn't think the outcome obvious enough to grant the injunction. The lower courts issued several such injunctions. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/29/us/politics/trump-tariffs... "On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of International Trade dealt an early blow to that strategy. The bipartisan panel of judges, one of whom had been appointed by Mr. Trump, ruled that the law did not grant the president “unbounded authority” to impose tariffs on nearly every country, as Mr. Trump had sought. As a result, the president’s tariffs were declared illegal, and the court ordered a halt to their collection within the next 10 days." "Just before she spoke, a federal judge in a separate case ordered another, temporary halt to many of Mr. Trump’s tariffs, ruling in favor of an educational toy company in Illinois, whose lawyers told the court it was harmed by Mr. Trump’s actions." | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | There were presumably lower court judges who didn't issue injunctions, or what are people objecting to? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The appeals level stayed the injunctions temporarily, probably expecting a quick emergency docket ruling rather than a long delay. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The appellate court decides whether to stay the injunction based on how likely they think you are to win more than which docket they think the Supreme Court is going to use. Cases going on the emergency docket are not common. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The appellate court decides whether to stay the injunction based on how likely they think you are to win… If multiple appeals courts thought this case was a winner for the administration, we have an even bigger problem. (Also, no. They might, for example, disagree on immediate irreparable harm, but not the overall merits.) > Cases going on the emergency docket are not common. Sure. But some of them look clearly destined for it. Including this one. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > If multiple appeals courts thought this case was a winner for the administration, we have an even bigger problem. Do we? The law here was a mess. Prediction markets didn't have the outcome at anything like a certainty and the relevant stocks are up on the decision, implying it wasn't already priced in -- and both of those are with the benefit of the transcripts once the case was already at the Supreme Court to feel out how the Justices were leaning, which the intermediary appellate court wouldn't have had at the time. > Sure. But some of them look clearly destined for it. It's not a thing anyone should be banking on in any case. And if that was actually their expectation then they could just as easily have not stayed the injunction and just let the Supreme Court do it if they were inclined to. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the relevant stocks are up on the decision Predictable result, unpredictable timing. > they could just as easily have not stayed the injunction and just let the Supreme Court do it if they were inclined to Hindsight is, as always, 20/20. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Predictable result, unpredictable timing. That wouldn't explain the prediction markets thinking the administration had a double digit chance of winning. The sure things go 99:1. > Hindsight is, as always, 20/20. It's not a matter of knowing which docket would be used. Why stay the injunction at all if you think the Supreme Court is going to immediately reverse you? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > That wouldn't explain the prediction markets thinking the administration had a double digit chance of winning. I am not a believer in the accuracy of prediction markets. > Why stay the injunction at all if you think the Supreme Court is going to immediately reverse you? They didn't think that. They thought SCOTUS would back them up faster. Back in November: https://fortune.com/2025/11/07/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-i... "That suggests a potentially lopsided 7-2 vote against Trump, who appointed Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh during his first term." We got 6-3. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/international-trade/trump-tari... "Though he normally aligns with Thomas and Alito, Gorsuch may be more likely to vote against Trump’s tariffs than Kavanaugh is, according to Prelogar. “It might actually be the chief, Barrett and Gorsuch who are in play,” she said." https://www.quarles.com/newsroom/publications/oral-arguments... "During the argument, several Justices expressed skepticism about the IEEPA expanding the President’s powers to encompass the ability to set tariffs." This was the widespread conclusion back then; that the justices were clearly skeptical and that the government was struggling to figure out an effective argument. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jeffbee 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | As pointed out in other comments this process is entirely by choice of the court. In other cases where they just felt like ruling on something they have put things on their emergency docket and ruled on them immediately. Letting this situation ride for a year was a choice by the court. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not doing something you could have done is frequently less of a choice and more of a lack of bandwidth to simultaneously consider everything which is happening at the same time. The vast majority of cases don't make it onto the emergency docket. |
|
| |
| ▲ | parineum 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The fast track is congress clarifying their own shit. Courts are slow, it's a feature not a bug. |
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | SCOTUS can move much quicker than this when they want to. And have fairly regularly to benefit this administration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket#Second_Trump_pre... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.G.G._v._Trump was vacated within days. "On Friday, March 14, 2025, Trump signed presidential proclamation 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act and asserting that Tren de Aragua, a criminal organization from Venezuela, had invaded the United States. The White House did not announce that the proclamation had been signed until the afternoon of the next day." "Very early on Saturday, March 15, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward filed a class action suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of five Venezuelan men held in immigration detention… The suit was assigned to judge James Boasberg. That morning, noting the exigent circumstances, he approved a temporary restraining order for the five plaintiffs, and he ordered a 5 p.m. hearing to determine whether he would certify the class in the class action." "On March 28, 2025, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal with the US Supreme Court, asking it to vacate Boasberg's temporary restraining orders and to immediately allow the administration to resume deportations under the Alien Enemies Act while it considered the request to vacate. On April 7, in a per curiam decision, the court vacated Boasberg's orders…" TL;DR: Trump signs executive order on March 14. Judge puts it on hold on March 15. Admin appeals on March 28. SCOTUS intervenes by April 7. | | |
| ▲ | zeroonetwothree 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | That was on the emergency docket. This decision was the merits docket, which always takes much longer. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's a distinction entirely invented by the court, and under their control. The emergency docket is whatever they want to treat as an emergency. The decision not to treat this as such - it's hard to imagine many clearer examples of "immediate irreprable harm" - was clearly partisan. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | allywilson 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| But that's not the issue. 'can the President unilaterally impose tariffs on any country he wants anytime he wants' No, he can't impost tariffs on any country. He can only impose tariffs on American companies willing to import from any country. |
|
| ▲ | tokai 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In normal democracies you have multiple parties, so there is a much better chance of creating a coalition around the government and force election/impeachment if the leadership goes rouge. The US system turned out to be as fragile as it looks. |
| |
| ▲ | dmix 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The failure of the US is not so much in judicial system (with some recent exceptions) mostly in how weak Congress has been for over a decade as executive power expands (arguably since Bush and including during Obama). The system was designed to prevent that from happening from the very beginning with various layers of checks on power, but the public keeps wanting a president to blame and fix everything. The judicial branch has been much more consistent on this matter with some recent exceptions with the Unitary executive theory becoming more popular in the courts. Ultimately no system can't stop that if there is a societal culture that tolerates the drumbeat of authoritarianism and centralization of power. |
|
|
| ▲ | duped 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The opinion should merely read > The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises (which it does, and expounds upon) |
| |
| ▲ | zeroonetwothree 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes but in practice they delegate this power to the executive. Congress doesn’t run the IRS themselves after all |
|
|
| ▲ | loeg 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Two of the justices would be happy to let Trump get away with murder. It's not that the law is ill-defined so much as a few justices are extremely partisan. Happily, a quorum of saner heads came about in this instance. |
| |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | It sure is interesting how different things might be if RBG and Biden had stepped down instead of doing... whatever it was they did instead. | | |
| ▲ | loeg 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, in an alternative universe RBG and Sotomayor both stepped down and got replaced under a Dem admin. | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It'd be interesting if Biden had taken the new doctrine of presidential immunity to heart in the last few months of his term. | | |
| ▲ | idontwantthis 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | A true hero would have done whatever it took to pack the SC and then resigned. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How would those confirmations have worked exactly? | | |
| ▲ | idontwantthis 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The president is immune to prosecution for official acts. He could have "officially" arrested republican senators, if necessary. | | |
| ▲ | ahmeneeroe-v2 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | >immune to prosecution for official acts. nope not true at all. go away troll | |
| ▲ | AuryGlenz 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You realize that would be an utterly insane road to go down and would hopefully lead to immediate impeachment, right? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You realize that would be an utterly insane road to go down We're already down that road; SCOTUS put us on it. The question is now how much damage it'll do to the car to do a U-turn. > would hopefully lead to immediate impeachment… This describes like a hundred things in the Trump second term so far. |
| |
| ▲ | 15155 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
| |
| ▲ | linhns 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The most stupid idea ever. Biden, despite his frailties, was conscious enough not to do this. | | |
| ▲ | c22 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think they were just overly confident that they would be re-elected. Why throw the baby out when the bathwater is still warm? | |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Packing the court just means passing legislation. It isn't some criminal thing. The court is an expression of political power. Expressing political power through it is not stupid. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Packing the court is unprecedented, and as soon as anyone did it, they would both do it continuously. It would also outrage the other party and make the first to do it more likely to lose the next election. So you would get to pack the court for the rest of your current term before the other party gets back in and packs it the other way, and thereafter lose the courts as a check on the party in power forever because the first thing a party would do when they get into power is pack the courts. It's a monumentally stupid idea. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | As with partisan gerrymandering, packing the court cannot be the only step. It would need to come with a commitment to a package of difficult to undo (i.e. amendments) reforms. SCOTUS term limits, preventing the Senate from refusing to even consider nominees, bans on justices receiving gifts (https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un...), revocation of Presidential immunity, etc. You pack the court with an explicit promise to largely return to the old status quo when it's fixed. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do you really think that if you packed the court, there is anything you could do to prevent the other party from doing the same thing the next time they're in power? Your plan would have to be to prevent them from ever getting back into power, and that's a civil war. On top of that, Clarence Thomas is the oldest person on the court and Alito is only two years younger. By the end of the next Presidential term they'll both be in their 80s. You don't have to pack the court, you just have to be in office for the term or two after this one. | | |
| ▲ | c22 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You also need to control congress or they'll just block you till they get their guy in. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's when you give them a moderate because you'd both rather that than flip a coin for who gets control of both branches at once first. | | |
| ▲ | Sabinus 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Nope, Obama tried that and McConnell still refused. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That was in a Presidential election year after Obama had already appointed two other Justices and the vacancy was the deciding vote, and Garland was more of a centrist than the previous nominees but was still left-leaning and would have flipped the court. Then they definitely lose if they confirm him but maybe win if there is a President from the other party the next year, and on top of that as long as they held the Senate even if they didn't retake the Presidency they could just confirm Garland in the fall instead of the summer. That's not what it looks like in most cases. In the first half of any term the next election can't gain you the Presidency but it could lose you the Senate. On top of that, when it isn't the deciding vote, e.g. the first of either Alito or Thomas to be replaced, a moderate is a much better hedge than the coin flip even in the second half of a term, because if you take the moderate and then lose the next election at least you have the moderate in the other party's majority, meanwhile if you win the next election then you keep the majority regardless. Which is to say, that's only likely to happen in the next few years if it happens for the second of the two Justices in the second half of a Presidential term and the Democrats lose the subsequent Presidential election. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Do you really think that if you packed the court, there is anything you could do to prevent the other party from doing the same thing the next time they're in power? I don't think it's 100% possible to stop a determined political movement in the US from doing A Holocaust, but I think it's worth at least trying to make it tough. | | |
| ▲ | SauntSolaire 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And that's a good reason not to do a Holocaust of your own, seeing as you likely don't want to kick start a chain of Holocausts. | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We can distinguish between packing the court in response to the other party doing it and doing A Holocaust, right? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The point is your objection also applies to A Holocaust. We can't 100% prevent anything; the Constitution could get amended to permit mass summary executions, with enough votes and public support. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying to make that tougher to accomplish. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The way you make that tougher to accomplish is by adding more checks and balances or repealing laws granting excessive authority to the executive. Packing the court would de facto remove an important one. The thing that would help that is a constitutional amendment prohibiting court packing. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > But the way you make that tougher to accomplish is by adding more checks and balances or repealing laws granting excessive authority to the executive. That is what I describe as the "package" of reforms, yes. > The thing that would help that is a constitutional amendment prohibiting court packing. Good idea! Pack the court, and in that law, include a trigger provision that repeals it as soon as said amendment is passed. (This has similarly been proposed in gerrymandering.) | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Good idea! Pack the court, and in that law, include a trigger provision that repeals it as soon as said amendment is passed. Except then the other party just packs the court again instead of passing the amendment, whereas if you already have the votes to pass the amendment then you would just do that without packing the court. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The idea is to establish a "we can keep the everyone-loses war going, or we can fix it for both of us". It's hardly unprecedented; you're seeing it right now with the decision to reopen the government except DHS. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The real way you do this is by thinking ahead for five minutes. We consistently have the problem that everybody realizes checks and balances are important when the other party is in power but that's when they don't have the ability to institute them, and then they forget all about it the next time they're in power. The easiest time to reduce executive power is when your party is in the executive branch to sign the bill. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The easiest time to reduce executive power is when your party is in the executive branch to sign the bill. This has the exact same problem you're complaining my proposal has; it can be undone, quite easily. Probably more easily. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Except that court packing is a purely partisan play where they gain nothing from not reciprocating in kind, whereas they benefit symmetrically from a reduction in executive power for the same reason as you -- it helps them the next time they're in the minority. And the symmetrical move wouldn't be to re-grant those powers to the executive, it would be to further limit the executive from unilaterally doing some things the other party doesn't think it should be doing. The best case scenario would be to somehow get both parties actually targeting the other's corruption instead of just trying to get the votes needed to be the ones sticking the money in their own pockets. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Biden shared a delusion with Schumer and first-term Obama, that the Republicans have a behavioral floor they won't gleefully take a jackhammer to. Democrats are finally waking up to this, I think, given the recent retaliatory gerrymandering in CA and VA. | | |
| ▲ | AuryGlenz 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Both of which (especially Virginia) are much more egregious than what happened in Texas, and it’s not like gerrymandering is new to either side. I’m not sure which side you think has a “behavioral floor,” but the answer is neither other than what we hold them to, so don’t excuse “your side.” | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Both of which (especially Virginia) are much more egregious than what happened in Texas… "Mom, he punched me back after I sucker-punched him!" | |
| ▲ | myvoiceismypass 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | How is the citizen-voted CA response - contingent entirely on Texas actually implementing - "much more egregious than what happened in Texas"? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | parineum 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Whatever it took" is just appointing more judges. The president can do that. Unfortunately, the result would be that Trump would have just packed it the other direction and this case would have gone the opposite way. Are you should that would have been a good idea? | | |
| ▲ | harimau777 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes. Eventually people would get tired of the court getting packed every 4 to 8 years and maybe fix the core weaknesses in the system. | | |
| ▲ | ApolloFortyNine 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Bills have gotten introduced to keep it at 9, but are generally shot down by democrats. Most recent one (I think, this isn't the easiest to research) is here. See all the sponsors are Rs[1] Part of the problem is it requires an amendment so you need a super majority. Imo democrats are waiting until they have enough of a majority to tank the reputation hit court packing would bring, but then lock it to 15 after they do so. [1]
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley... |
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Unfortunately, the result would be that Trump… ...would have been sentenced for his 34 felony convictions and probably never get reelected? | | |
| ▲ | zzrrt 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Are you saying a Biden-packed SC would have directly resulted in Trump being jailed? How? And my understanding was he was sentenced for the felonies, to unconditional discharge, because he was days away from beginning his second term. So how would that have gone differently just because the SC was packed? Edit: Oh, maybe you’re thinking of things like the Colorado ballot eligibility case. Then if he hadn’t been electable, he would have been sentenced to serve time. Maybe, but are you arguing the Constitutional merits of Trump losing that case? Or are you okay with partisan hacks in the SC as long as they are Dems instead? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Edit: Oh, maybe you’re thinking of things like the Colorado ballot eligibility case. No, I'm thinking of the get-out-of-jail card they gave him in Trump v. US that immediately impacted NY v. Trump. > Then if he hadn’t been electable, he would have been sentenced to serve time. No, I think an electable person should still be able to be locked up for crimes. > Or are you okay with partisan hacks in the SC as long as they are Dems instead? I think the only chance of saving SCOTUS from partisan hackery is to stop surrendering. | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Are you saying a Biden-packed SC would have directly resulted in Trump being jailed? I don't think a Biden-packed SC would've found the President to be immune to criminal charges, no. > And my understanding was he was sentenced for the felonies, to unconditional discharge, because he was days away from beginning his second term. He was sentenced to nothing, directly because of the SCOTUS ruling. Per the judge: "the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction without encroachment on the highest office of the land". Pre-SCOTUS ruling, no such "encroachment" existed. | | |
| ▲ | zzrrt 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | His felony convictions came from crimes committed in the 2016 campaign. The judge “subsequently ruled that Trump's conviction related "entirely to unofficial conduct" and "poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch."”
(https://abcnews.com/US/judge-trumps-hush-money-case-expected...) so I don’t think it relates to SCOTUS’s immunity ruling. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Merchan subsequently ruled that Trump's conviction related "entirely to unofficial conduct" and "poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch." Again, at the actual sentencing, his ruling stated an unconditional discharge was "the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction without encroachment on the highest office of the land". "I can sentence you, but only to nothing" is functionally not being able to sentence him. | | |
| ▲ | zzrrt 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | If he was referring to the 2024 SCOTUS ruling, I guess I expected him to spell it out well enough for an armchair lawyer like myself, but you are probably right. Though I wonder if the "encroach" wording could be about the Supremacy clause and separation of powers (him being a state judge encroaching on the elected federal executive.) He wrote a lot at https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFs/press/PDFs/People%20v.%2... but I can't tell how much this SCOTUS ruling weighed into it. There are references to "presidential immunity" that, I think, encompass older cases than the 2024 one. Anyway, in agreement with your larger point, the legal analyst at https://youtu.be/4tbaDI7ycrA?t=592 says he believe this SCOTUS would not have allowed a real sentence, so my nitpicking about the interaction of the 2024 decision with the lower court's sentencing doesn't matter much; SCOTUS would have let Trump go either way, and probably a Biden-packed court wouldn't have. It's just another sign that modern Republicans aren't truly "Constitution-lovers" or textualists, that their leader is only safe because judicial activism invented immunity for him. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | parineum 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | None of these three things are related. SCOTUS doesn't rule on criminal cases, sentencing for state level crimes is done at the state level and he could have still run for president in jail. The fact that the conviction only made his polling go up should tell you what the result of jailing him would have been. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > SCOTUS doesn't rule on criminal cases… SCOTUS ruled that the President has immunity from criminal prosecution. (And they very regularly rule on other, more mundane criminal cases. Where on earth did you get the idea they don't? https://oklahomavoice.com/2025/02/25/u-s-supreme-court-tosse... as a super random example.) > sentencing for state level crimes is done at the state level SCOTUS ruled that said immunity applies to state crimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States#Opinion... This was... rather large news. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/10/trump-unconditional... > “This court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction without encroachment on the highest office of the land is a sentence of unconditional discharge,” Merchan said at the sentencing. > The fact that the conviction only made his polling go up should tell you what the result of jailing him would have been. We have precisely zero information on what a campaign by a jailed candidate who can't travel, campaign, or schmooze donors would result in. | | |
| ▲ | parineum 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > SCOTUS ruled that the President has immunity from criminal prosecution.
> SCOTUS ruled that said immunity applies to state crimes. And yet he was criminally prosecuted. > And they very regularly rule on other, more mundane criminal cases. Sorry, they don't convict in criminal cases. > “This court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgment of conviction without encroachment on the highest office of the land is a sentence of unconditional discharge,” Merchan said at the sentencing. You're conflating things again. He was not punished for his crimes. That doesn't mean he was not convicted. You can't be immune and convicted. If he was immune, the case would have been thrown out. He's still a felon and so, clearly, not immune. The immunity granted by SCOTUS was far more limited in scope than news outlets would have you believe. > We have precisely zero information on what a campaign by a jailed candidate who can't travel, campaign, or schmooze donors would result in. This time it will be different, surely! | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | zeroonetwothree 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | NY v Trump was a state criminal case. The Supreme Court would not have been involved. | | | |
| ▲ | idontwantthis 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Exactly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | karel-3d 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The thing is he usually cannot but sometimes can. The issue is around "sometimes". |
|
| ▲ | keernan 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >apparently so ill defined in law that 9 justices can't agree on it That is not how the Supreme Court works. SCOTUS is a political body. Justices do one thing: cast votes. For any reason. If they write an opinion it is merely their post hoc justification for their vote. Otherwise they do not have to explain anything. And when they do write an opinion it does not necessarily reflect the real reason for the way they voted. Edit: Not sure why anyone is downvoting this comment. I was a trial attorney for 40+ years. If you believe what I posted is legally inaccurate, then provide a comment. But downvoting without explaining is ... just ... I don't know ... cowardly? |
| |
| ▲ | fuzzfactor 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | >downvoting without explaining is ... just ... Like I've said before, if you can't tell whether it's a bot or a real person voting, it doesn't matter anyway. Might as well be a bot either way. corrective upvote made |
|
|
| ▲ | onlyrealcuzzo 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Statutory Law is 50,000 pages, and that's just the beginning of everything you need to consider. Make stupid laws, win stupid prizes. It's almost like the legal system is designed so that you can get away with murder if you can afford enough lawyers. |
| |
| ▲ | fwip 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Of which, only a small fraction will be relevant in any particular case. It's kind of like pointing at any major codebase and arguing that it's "stupid" to have millions of lines of code. |
|
|
| ▲ | Sparkle-san 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | zeroonetwothree 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Did you actually read it? Seems unlikely. I agree with the majority but I think the dissent does make some ok points. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | fuzzfactor 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | danlitt 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
