XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: x@y.com   
      
   Key Justices Cast a Skeptical Eye on Trump’s Tariffs   
   The Supreme Court is considering whether the president acted legally when   
   he used a 1977 emergency statute to impose tariffs on scores of countries.   
   Listen to this article · 10:30 min Learn more   
   A large container ship docked under cranes at port.   
   Container ships in the Port of Los Angeles. In April, President Trump   
   expanded the tariffs on products from Canada, Mexico and China to include   
   goods from more than 100 trading partners.Credit...Maggie Shannon for The   
   New York Times   
   Ann E. Marimow   
   By Ann E. Marimow   
   Reporting from Washington   
   Nov. 5, 2025Updated 3:43 p.m. ET   
   A majority of Supreme Court justices on Wednesday asked skeptical questions   
   about President Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs on   
   imports from nearly every U.S. trading partner, casting doubt on a   
   centerpiece of the administration’s second-term agenda.   
   The outcome of the case, which could be decided within weeks or months, has   
   immense economic and political implications for U.S. businesses, consumers   
   and the president’s trade policy.   
   Several members of the court’s conservative majority, including Justice Amy   
   Coney Barrett and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined the liberal justices in   
   sharply questioning the Trump administration’s assertion that it has the   
   power to unilaterally impose tariffs without congressional approval.   
   Justice Barrett, who is seen as a key vote, questioned the scope of Mr.   
   Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, which she described as “across the board.”   
   “Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of   
   threats to the defense and industrial base?” she asked a lawyer for the   
   administration. “Spain? France? I mean, I could see it with some countries   
   but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the   
   reciprocal tariff policy.”   
   Several justices also noted that Mr. Trump was the first president to claim   
   that the 50-year-old emergency statute allowed the president to impose   
   tariffs.   
   At issue is Mr. Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers   
   Act of 1977 to unilaterally set tariffs on imports from more than 100   
   countries in an attempt to reduce the trade deficit and ignite more   
   manufacturing in the United States.   
   D. John Sauer, the U.S. solicitor general, told the justices that Congress   
   intentionally conferred broad powers on the president to address   
   emergencies. The case, he said, is not about the “power to tax,” which the   
   Constitution reserves for Congress, but the ability to regulate foreign   
   commerce, where he said the president has wider latitude.   
   The fact that tariffs raise revenue, he said, is “only incidental.”   
   That did not appear to satisfy the three liberal justices, including   
   Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said: “You want to say tariffs are not taxes,   
   but that’s exactly what they are. They are generating money from American   
   citizens.”   
   In the lead-up to Wednesday’s argument, Mr. Trump called the case   
   “literally, LIFE OR DEATH for our Country,” underscoring the degree to   
   which he views it as critical to his trade and foreign policies. Without   
   the emergency power, he said on social media, the country “is virtually   
   defenseless against other Countries who have, for years, taken advantage of   
   us.”   
   Hours after the argument concluded, Mr. Trump bragged at an event in   
   Florida about the revenue that tariffs have raised, saying they have helped   
   bring the government “hundreds of billions of dollars.”   
   The tariffs were challenged in court by a dozen states, in addition to   
   small businesses, including a wine importer and an educational toy   
   manufacturer. Hundreds of small businesses separately joined court filings   
   that call Mr. Trump’s actions unlawful, saying the tariffs have forced them   
   to raise prices and scale back staffing.   
   Until now, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has been largely   
   receptive to Mr. Trump’s claims of presidential authority, but it has ruled   
   largely on emergency orders that have been technically temporary. The   
   tariffs case, which is considered a legal tossup by experts, is the first   
   time in Mr. Trump’s second term that the justices will address the   
   underlying legal merits of a major administration priority in a more   
   lasting way.   
   The key question for the justices on Wednesday was whether the president   
   exceeded his authority when he used the 1977 emergency statute. Past   
   presidents have relied on the law to impose sanctions or embargoes on other   
   countries, but Mr. Trump is the first to use it to impose tariffs.   
   Editors’ Picks   
   Is Waking Up to Pee Normal?   
   Help! Air France Lost My Fencing Gear Before a Big Tournament.   
   When Chuseok Means a Full Moon and Handmade Rice Cakes   
   Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, both nominees of Mr. Trump, raised   
   separation-of-power concerns.   
   They suggested the administration’s position could represent an   
   unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive branch   
   that would be difficult for Congress to reclaim. Justice Gorsuch warned of   
   “a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in   
   the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives” in   
   Congress.   
   Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who is often in the majority in high-   
   profile cases, asked tough questions of both sides, but sounded most   
   emphatic when questioning the Trump administration’s lawyer.   
   He joined the liberal justices in emphasizing that the power to tax is a   
   core congressional authority, but said the president has the authority to   
   conduct foreign affairs and tariffs are a “foreign-facing tax.” The chief   
   justice noted that the tariffs had been “quite effective in achieving   
   particular objectives.”   
   Our economics reporters — based in New York, London, Brussels, Berlin, Hong   
   Kong and Seoul — are digging into every aspect of the tariffs causing   
   global turmoil. They are joined by dozens of reporters writing about the   
   effects on everyday people.   
   Here’s our latest reporting on tariffs and economic policy.   
   Almost immediately after returning to the White House for a second term in   
   January, Mr. Trump announced tariffs on goods imported into the United   
   States from China, Canada and Mexico, saying the levies were a punishment   
   for those nations’ failing to stop the flow of fentanyl. In April, he   
   expanded the tariffs to imports on goods from more than 100 trading   
   partners, saying they were needed to address trade deficits with the rest   
   of the world.   
   Image   
   President Trump holding a large poster while standing at a lectern with   
   Howard Lutnick standing near him applauding.   
   Mr. Trump announcing expanded tariffs at the White House in   
   April.Credit...Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times   
   Under the law, the president has the authority to take certain steps in   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)