Ian Millhiser

But since no one has yet cited a dictionary definition for unusual or extraordinary, I thought I would offer one. Unusual just means not usual. That's the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, and extraordinary is going beyond what is unusual, regular, or customary. That fits with the state of affairs that this executive order describes. It explains, again,

But since no one has yet cited a dictionary definition for unusual or extraordinary, I thought I would offer one. Unusual just means not usual. That's the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, and extraordinary is going beyond what is unusual, regular, or customary. That fits with the state of affairs that this executive order describes. It explains, again,

So broadly speaking, there's three ways this could turn out. One, they could just uphold the tariffs and then the tariffs stick around, assuming that a higher court doesn't step in. The second is that they just think this wall that Trump relied on doesn't allow these particular tariffs to exist. That would be a very narrow opinion.

So broadly speaking, there's three ways this could turn out. One, they could just uphold the tariffs and then the tariffs stick around, assuming that a higher court doesn't step in. The second is that they just think this wall that Trump relied on doesn't allow these particular tariffs to exist. That would be a very narrow opinion.

So broadly speaking, there's three ways this could turn out. One, they could just uphold the tariffs and then the tariffs stick around, assuming that a higher court doesn't step in. The second is that they just think this wall that Trump relied on doesn't allow these particular tariffs to exist. That would be a very narrow opinion.

And I don't know that in a decision that says that would necessarily get rid of the tariffs for very long because there's other statutes, the Trade Act of 1974, which which also potentially allow Trump to impose tariffs. It would just take longer for him to do it under the Trade Act. So if they strike this down on statutory grounds, we could be back having this argument a few months from now.

And I don't know that in a decision that says that would necessarily get rid of the tariffs for very long because there's other statutes, the Trade Act of 1974, which which also potentially allow Trump to impose tariffs. It would just take longer for him to do it under the Trade Act. So if they strike this down on statutory grounds, we could be back having this argument a few months from now.

And I don't know that in a decision that says that would necessarily get rid of the tariffs for very long because there's other statutes, the Trade Act of 1974, which which also potentially allow Trump to impose tariffs. It would just take longer for him to do it under the Trade Act. So if they strike this down on statutory grounds, we could be back having this argument a few months from now.

And then the third possibility is – During the Obama and Biden administrations, a bunch of Republican judges and justices came up with very aggressive theories to limit the power of the president because they didn't want Obama and Biden doing things like canceling student loans.

And then the third possibility is – During the Obama and Biden administrations, a bunch of Republican judges and justices came up with very aggressive theories to limit the power of the president because they didn't want Obama and Biden doing things like canceling student loans.

And then the third possibility is – During the Obama and Biden administrations, a bunch of Republican judges and justices came up with very aggressive theories to limit the power of the president because they didn't want Obama and Biden doing things like canceling student loans.

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.

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.

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.