Ian Millhiser

And these judges could potentially take these doctrines that were created to go after Joe Biden and just apply them to Donald Trump. And if that happens, it could mean that the tariffs are gone for good. So I don't say this with any degree of certainty, but I'm like 60 to 70% sure that they're going to strike the tariffs down. They did have... You know, lots of questions for both sides.

In response to Trump's lawyer, I mean, they did not buy this argument that that's a political question. The court shouldn't be involved at all. You know, there was a lot of mockery of that question.

In response to Trump's lawyer, I mean, they did not buy this argument that that's a political question. The court shouldn't be involved at all. You know, there was a lot of mockery of that question.

In response to Trump's lawyer, I mean, they did not buy this argument that that's a political question. The court shouldn't be involved at all. You know, there was a lot of mockery of that question.

They brought up constitutional and quasi-constitutional arguments like this thing called the major questions doctrine, which essentially says that when the president tries to do something that's too big, that the court should be very skeptical of that. Trump argued that the major questions doctrine doesn't apply to him, and the judges didn't seem to buy that at all.

They brought up constitutional and quasi-constitutional arguments like this thing called the major questions doctrine, which essentially says that when the president tries to do something that's too big, that the court should be very skeptical of that. Trump argued that the major questions doctrine doesn't apply to him, and the judges didn't seem to buy that at all.

They brought up constitutional and quasi-constitutional arguments like this thing called the major questions doctrine, which essentially says that when the president tries to do something that's too big, that the court should be very skeptical of that. Trump argued that the major questions doctrine doesn't apply to him, and the judges didn't seem to buy that at all.

So, you know, it's not like they all stood up and said, verily, we three judges intend to strike down the tariffs, and you can, you know, reporters can listen to us say this and know with certainty what's going to happen. But it sounded more like the sort of hearing that the government loses in than it sounded like the kind of hearing where the government wins.

So, you know, it's not like they all stood up and said, verily, we three judges intend to strike down the tariffs, and you can, you know, reporters can listen to us say this and know with certainty what's going to happen. But it sounded more like the sort of hearing that the government loses in than it sounded like the kind of hearing where the government wins.

So, you know, it's not like they all stood up and said, verily, we three judges intend to strike down the tariffs, and you can, you know, reporters can listen to us say this and know with certainty what's going to happen. But it sounded more like the sort of hearing that the government loses in than it sounded like the kind of hearing where the government wins.

That said, I would be stunned if this doesn't go to the Supreme Court. The U.S. Court of International Trade, like, you know, these are experts on trade. I was impressed by the professionalism of the judges that I heard hearing the case yesterday. Right. But these are obscure officials.

That said, I would be stunned if this doesn't go to the Supreme Court. The U.S. Court of International Trade, like, you know, these are experts on trade. I was impressed by the professionalism of the judges that I heard hearing the case yesterday. Right. But these are obscure officials.

That said, I would be stunned if this doesn't go to the Supreme Court. The U.S. Court of International Trade, like, you know, these are experts on trade. I was impressed by the professionalism of the judges that I heard hearing the case yesterday. Right. But these are obscure officials.

We generally don't want rando trade policy walks to be deciding the most important political questions for the United States. Generally, that's a matter that we want the big hitters to be brought in. And in this case, the big hitters are, unfortunately, the Supreme Court justices. So I'm fairly confident that this is going to go up to the Supreme Court eventually.

We generally don't want rando trade policy walks to be deciding the most important political questions for the United States. Generally, that's a matter that we want the big hitters to be brought in. And in this case, the big hitters are, unfortunately, the Supreme Court justices. So I'm fairly confident that this is going to go up to the Supreme Court eventually.

We generally don't want rando trade policy walks to be deciding the most important political questions for the United States. Generally, that's a matter that we want the big hitters to be brought in. And in this case, the big hitters are, unfortunately, the Supreme Court justices. So I'm fairly confident that this is going to go up to the Supreme Court eventually.

Yeah. So this statute is a little different than a lot of the other emergency statutes. This one – and I'm just going to – again, I'm going to read it again. It says that the powers that Trump is invoking here can only be used to, quote, deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.

Yeah. So this statute is a little different than a lot of the other emergency statutes. This one – and I'm just going to – again, I'm going to read it again. It says that the powers that Trump is invoking here can only be used to, quote, deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.

Yeah. So this statute is a little different than a lot of the other emergency statutes. This one – and I'm just going to – again, I'm going to read it again. It says that the powers that Trump is invoking here can only be used to, quote, deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.

Now, I read that and I hear there are two things that needs to happen. One is that the president needs to declare an emergency. He's done that. I don't think the courts can review that, and that's fine. But the second thing is that the statute also says that whatever he's reacting to actually has to be an unusual and extraordinary threat.