Gina Smialek

Yes, hello?

Yes, hello?

Right. So this case was fundamentally about whether President Trump has the authority to enact across-the-board tariffs on U.S. trading partners without approval from Congress.

Right. So this case was fundamentally about whether President Trump has the authority to enact across-the-board tariffs on U.S. trading partners without approval from Congress.

And so it was about this 10% tariff that has been applied to a range of trading partners, including the European Union, which is what I cover, and which have obviously made it a lot more expensive to import products from overseas into the United States.

And so it was about this 10% tariff that has been applied to a range of trading partners, including the European Union, which is what I cover, and which have obviously made it a lot more expensive to import products from overseas into the United States.

And so we saw the wine company you talked to, a women's cycling apparel company, an online fishing tackle company, band together and take this to a court and say that this was an over-interpretation of a pretty obscure law that had allowed these to go into effect in the first place and that it should be overturned. And remind us, Gina, what is that law called? Yeah.

And so we saw the wine company you talked to, a women's cycling apparel company, an online fishing tackle company, band together and take this to a court and say that this was an over-interpretation of a pretty obscure law that had allowed these to go into effect in the first place and that it should be overturned. And remind us, Gina, what is that law called? Yeah.

So it is this 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is what we in trade circles all call AIPA. And it is basically the cudgel that President Trump has been using to wage his trade war on global trading partners. It's not the only thing he uses, but this is the law that he uses to apply tariffs of varying sizes across

So it is this 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is what we in trade circles all call AIPA. And it is basically the cudgel that President Trump has been using to wage his trade war on global trading partners. It's not the only thing he uses, but this is the law that he uses to apply tariffs of varying sizes across

across the board on products from a range of trading partners. And so it's been really important to his strategy of kind of surprising people with big, varying, kind of shocking tariff packages. This law is a sort of unusual tool to use for something like this because it primarily concerns trade embargoes and economic sanctions.

across the board on products from a range of trading partners. And so it's been really important to his strategy of kind of surprising people with big, varying, kind of shocking tariff packages. This law is a sort of unusual tool to use for something like this because it primarily concerns trade embargoes and economic sanctions.

It was originally conceptualized to be in reaction to national emergencies, and the administration has basically been arguing that the trade situation is a national emergency. So this is this really unusual interpretation of this 50-year-old piece of legislation, and this wine importer and these other companies basically take it before the court and say, this is too broad.

It was originally conceptualized to be in reaction to national emergencies, and the administration has basically been arguing that the trade situation is a national emergency. So this is this really unusual interpretation of this 50-year-old piece of legislation, and this wine importer and these other companies basically take it before the court and say, this is too broad.

Can you just walk me through their decision? So the decision essentially said two things. It first said that a set of tariffs that the Trump administration has put on Mexico, Canada, and China in response to the fentanyl trade is not a good use of this law. And it also, importantly, said that across-the-board tariffs, these tariffs that apply to everyone at 10% currently—

Can you just walk me through their decision? So the decision essentially said two things. It first said that a set of tariffs that the Trump administration has put on Mexico, Canada, and China in response to the fentanyl trade is not a good use of this law. And it also, importantly, said that across-the-board tariffs, these tariffs that apply to everyone at 10% currently—

is too broad of a use of the law and that the law was not meant to give the president unbound authority to just put tariffs on whoever he wants at whatever rate he wants. And as a result, they are basically blocking these tariffs. You know, this latest news

is too broad of a use of the law and that the law was not meant to give the president unbound authority to just put tariffs on whoever he wants at whatever rate he wants. And as a result, they are basically blocking these tariffs. You know, this latest news

Right. It is a law to keep track of. I think it's important to emphasize what's not affected, and that is sector-specific tariffs. So you may remember that there are 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum and on cars. Those tariffs are under a different law entirely and are not subject to this ruling.

Right. It is a law to keep track of. I think it's important to emphasize what's not affected, and that is sector-specific tariffs. So you may remember that there are 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum and on cars. Those tariffs are under a different law entirely and are not subject to this ruling.