Dave Townsend

Yeah, I mean, I think a win is a win, right?

You only need five to uphold the lower court and find the tariffs were unlawful.

But I do think the six to three vote provides even a sharper defeat here for the administration's arguments.

I mean, you had...

Yeah, so the predecessor to IEPA was the Trading with the Enemies Act, TWIA, and the court had previously said that the language in TWIA, that is to regulate importation, did authorize limited tariffs.

And so I think the dissent is pointing back at that and saying consistent with that holding, we would find that the same language that Congress used in TWIA, they carried it over into IEPA, would authorize

the imposition of tariffs.

And I mean, I do think that as a matter, if you were reading IEPA in a vacuum, the question of whether the language to regulate importation permits tariffs is tricky.

It's difficult.

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.