Advertisement Speaker

Yes, you're right. And they chose those five because I think all those five businesses, they had stuff that they were importing from like over 30 different countries around the world.

So they could cover their ground. That's right. Yes.

So they could cover their ground. That's right. Yes.

So they could cover their ground. That's right. Yes.

The plaintiffs argued that this law, that Trump's use of AIPA, had never been used before by any other president. It was the first time that any president had ever said that, oh, I can impose tariffs on another country based on this emergency that I believe is happening. They said that the IEPA does not grant any kind of ability for the president to impose tariffs.

The plaintiffs argued that this law, that Trump's use of AIPA, had never been used before by any other president. It was the first time that any president had ever said that, oh, I can impose tariffs on another country based on this emergency that I believe is happening. They said that the IEPA does not grant any kind of ability for the president to impose tariffs.

The plaintiffs argued that this law, that Trump's use of AIPA, had never been used before by any other president. It was the first time that any president had ever said that, oh, I can impose tariffs on another country based on this emergency that I believe is happening. They said that the IEPA does not grant any kind of ability for the president to impose tariffs.

That's the job of Congress, and Congress created this law, and they argued that there was no language in that law that said that Trump had the ability to impose tariffs.

That's the job of Congress, and Congress created this law, and they argued that there was no language in that law that said that Trump had the ability to impose tariffs.

That's the job of Congress, and Congress created this law, and they argued that there was no language in that law that said that Trump had the ability to impose tariffs.

The plaintiff's argument was that this wasn't an emergency, there's been a trade deficit for decades, and this definitely wasn't some unusual and extraordinary threat.

The plaintiff's argument was that this wasn't an emergency, there's been a trade deficit for decades, and this definitely wasn't some unusual and extraordinary threat.

The plaintiff's argument was that this wasn't an emergency, there's been a trade deficit for decades, and this definitely wasn't some unusual and extraordinary threat.

The government argued that this was an emergency, that in the last five years the trade deficit had ballooned, and that cumulatively this was affecting domestic manufacturing and was affecting our military supply chain.

The government argued that this was an emergency, that in the last five years the trade deficit had ballooned, and that cumulatively this was affecting domestic manufacturing and was affecting our military supply chain.

The government argued that this was an emergency, that in the last five years the trade deficit had ballooned, and that cumulatively this was affecting domestic manufacturing and was affecting our military supply chain.

The main argument for the Justice Department was that Trump had this power to unilaterally impose these tariffs and that the court had a very limited role in even reviewing his use of that authority. They said that the court didn't have any right to decide whether or not Trump's emergency was a real emergency or not. And that was something that was left up for him to decide and that Congress,

The main argument for the Justice Department was that Trump had this power to unilaterally impose these tariffs and that the court had a very limited role in even reviewing his use of that authority. They said that the court didn't have any right to decide whether or not Trump's emergency was a real emergency or not. And that was something that was left up for him to decide and that Congress,

The main argument for the Justice Department was that Trump had this power to unilaterally impose these tariffs and that the court had a very limited role in even reviewing his use of that authority. They said that the court didn't have any right to decide whether or not Trump's emergency was a real emergency or not. And that was something that was left up for him to decide and that Congress,

could potentially review his actions, but it wasn't the court's role.