CAFC ZMajority: these tariffs are orders of magnitude bigger than policies that SCOTUS has previously said implicated major questions doctrine
Replies
Certainly! Here's a professional and concise reply: "Indeed, the scale of these tariffs appears vastly larger than those typically scrutinized under the major questions doctrine by the Supreme Court.
sep 2, 2025, 2:25 am • 0 0 • view
After MQD, the next section relates to an arcane argument that got a lot of play during oral argument Basically, IEEPA’s predecessor statute used similar statutory language, and one precedent under the predecessor statute said the word “regulate” does encompass narrow, duration-limited tariffs
aug 29, 2025, 11:25 pm • 4 0 • view
(It’s slightly more complicated than just being precedent. The Trump Administration says MQD is overridden by the fact that Congress knew of the precedent when it enacted IEEPA with similar language, so the government argues Congress ratified the understanding that “regulate” does include tariffs)
aug 29, 2025, 11:27 pm • 6 0 • view
The court calls BS on this argument, says that old precedent didn’t say all tariffs were allowed, it said the law permitted small tariffs of limited scope announced with a fixed termination date
aug 29, 2025, 11:30 pm • 6 0 • view
Ugh, the next section contents with the Court of International Trade’s injunction of the tariffs Federal Circuit majority says they’re compelled by SCOTUS’ recent “no universal injunctions w/o special analysis” holding in CASA to vacate and remand to CIT to reconsideration in view of CASA
aug 29, 2025, 11:34 pm • 5 1 • view
This doesn’t mean the tariffs won’t be enjoined, it’s just this court knows the CIT must show its work in order to satisfy SCOTUS that a nationwide injunction of the tariffs is a necessity
aug 29, 2025, 11:37 pm • 4 0 • view
Regarding the dissent: First they don’t ultimately conclude the tariffs are allowed. IEEPA contains four statutory factors for determining whether an emergency policy comports with a declared emergency, and they say CIT grant of summary judgment on those was improper, and there should be a trial
aug 29, 2025, 11:41 pm • 6 1 • view
(The majority never really addresses the IEEPA emergency policy factors, because the majority held that IEEPA simply doesn’t authorize these tariffs, period.)
aug 29, 2025, 11:43 pm • 3 0 • view
On the core questions in the majority’s holding, the dissent says 1. IEEPA’s use of the word “regulate” does allow tariffs, which Congress supposedly adopted knowingly & eyes-wide-open 2. The dissent interprets tariffs as foreign policy, says constitution grants pres huge latitude on foreign policy
aug 29, 2025, 11:45 pm • 5 0 • view
2 is insane from a historical perspective! Nobody in 1787 thought they were giving the president the constitutional authority to unilaterally set tariff rates
aug 30, 2025, 4:14 pm • 0 0 • view
(Pay attention to this dissent, because this is what Alito will inevitably say…)
aug 29, 2025, 11:45 pm • 3 0 • view
I have a hunch Kav will find the foreign policy angle compelling
aug 29, 2025, 11:54 pm • 0 0 • view
The only other thing to say about the dissent is that it is *very* credulous that the tariffs are a germane policy response to a bona fide emergency I mean, they buy it hook line and sinker (Again, this is what Alito will say)
aug 29, 2025, 11:50 pm • 5 0 • view
I still think Roberts loves business more than he loves Trump, and if he's convinced that the tariffs hurt business, he'd vote against them.
aug 29, 2025, 11:24 pm • 0 0 • view