| ▲ | NetMageSCW a day ago | |
I thought those were on very solid ground commonly used by past administrations? | ||
| ▲ | bickfordb a day ago | parent | next [-] | |
Section 122 has rarely been used. State AGs announced lawsuits today: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/05/trump-tariffs-state-ags-sue-... | ||
| ▲ | loeg 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
Section 122 is only supposed to be applied to address balance of payments deficits, which are essentially zero with floating currency exchange rates (since the 70s). They're also limited to 15% and 150 days. (Judges will not look favorably on Trump trying to just restart the same tariff for another 150 days after the first expire.) | ||
| ▲ | dragonwriter 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
> I thought those were on very solid ground commonly used by past administrations No, Section 122 tariffs have never been used prior to Trump turning to them after the Supreme Court decision striking down the IEEPA tariffs, and, the states suing the Administration argue, the explicit sole statutory purpose for which they were allowed in the 1974 law creating the power can only possible to exist under a fixed-exchange-rate monetary system, which the US has not had since 1976. | ||