Dave Townsend

Well, I think the administration's argument was we can clearly ban imports under that language and under AIPA.

And they've done that for decades under various economic sanction statutes.

And so the theory would go, if we can ban imports, why can't we do something more calibrated and measured, such as impose a tariff?

So, I mean, I think there's kind of two dimensions here in terms of what happens next.

One is with respect to tariff refunds and whether importers are owed tariffs.

And the second is what does the administration do next?

What is the U.S.

tariff policy in light of this opinion?

And the administration has been laying the groundwork

i'm sure behind the scenes but in public too saying continuity will carry the day as of today and moving forward and the tariffs in one form or another will be reimposed under probably a combination of authorities so i think you know

The refund issue is important to companies.

Moving forward, the policy issue may not actually move that significantly, at least in the near term.

I think they're going to be ready to come out with something very quickly to backfill and replace the IEPA tariffs.

Sure, June, and it's great to be with you.

Yeah, the basic premise of the opinion is that the IEPA statute, which empowers the president to take action to regulate importation, doesn't extend to imposing tariffs.

And so as a matter of statutory interpretation, the president exceeded the authority in issuing the global and fentanyl-related tariffs.

One thing that did surprise me a bit, June, about the opinion was how definitive it was with respect to the statutory interpretation question.

The lower courts had been maybe a bit more measured.

They had said that the use of the IEPA authority had exceeded what IEPA was intended to permit.

And the Supreme Court, it looks to me, went one step further and said that the language of the statute doesn't permit tariffs full stop.