Reading it, it seems more procedural than substantive. Didn't read it all but it seems based on a view that the Plaintiffs didn't meet the summary judgment standard and would remand for more proceedings. If I'm missing something, I'm sure someone will correct me!

Two from Democratic appointees! (The majority does include one GOP judge...CAFC is *very* blue)

WTF is with those 2 Dem appointees? Any idea?

They disagree? Not everything is partisan politics

In my mind, this was one of the most open-and-shut cases around.

Based on what part of the statute? I agree with the decision, but a broad statute allowing a president to act unilaterally in a particular area is unlikely to result in zero dissent when he does in fact act unilaterally in that particular area, even if found to be unlawful

That country specific tariffs are not due to a "national emergency", that "regulate importation" does not mean charging X (or Y or Z depending on the time of day). The words and actions alone of Trump make a lie to all of this.

I agree, but both of those are subjective definitions. Which means you’re never going to get a unanimous decision, or very unlikely.

They clearly believe in the unitary executive theory

The Federal Circuit is a surprisingly apolitical court. I think these judges were just calling the legal question as they saw it. Unfortunately they also gave the Supreme Court a nice roadmap for how to reverse.

That roadmap is basically what Kavanaugh has been hinting at recently, quoted by the dissent. Guess we'll see which other justices agree with him.

Or are obligated to concur.

An unwillingness to swallow the hogwash that is the 'Major Questions Doctrine'? *shrug* who knows?

How much more clear would the Constitution have to be?