5 ms·

As a European I have a rough understanding about the legal grounds of how tariff rules are being set in the EU. But on the US side - can a US citizen maybe exp

As a European I have a rough understanding about the legal grounds of how tariff rules are being set in the EU. But on the US side - can a US citizen maybe explain the legal basis of the current tectonic shift in trade policy enacted through the tariffs? So far I assumed that the federal executive branch could only use tariffs to address security concerns or unfair practices. The actual policy change (especially the 10% base rate) is definitely more than that.

piva00 1y ago
Disclaimer: not American, not living in the USA. All the analysis I've read about it say that the one-sided implementation of broad tariffs is not legal according to current US laws. It doesn't matter though until it's litigated, goes through courts, appeals, Supreme Court, while all that process is ongoing the tariffs are there. And who the fuck knows how the Supreme Court will decide on this in the end?
mwkaufma 1y ago
Trump invoked a "state of emergency"
rsynnott 1y ago
What Trump's doing may be illegal, either on the basis that the law under which it is being done is itself unconstitutional (in that it delegates the power to set taxes from Congress, which isn't supposed to happen) or in that he is misusing that law (in that it is supposed to be for emergencies). Lawsuits are being taken against the state on both bases.
outside1234 1y ago
He only has the ability to enact tariffs in an emergency, which he claims is the case, because "fentanyl", but probably will not live up to legal scrutiny. The challenge of course, is that it takes a lot of time to legally challenge it, and in the meantime, we have this chaos. This is why choosing a moral, steady, wise leader is important. The system can't keep up with the alternative.
- miketery 1y ago
  The conclusion shouldn’t be about choosing a wise or moral leader, that’s an unknown and not a guarantee whether someone will remain wise. The conclusion ought to be that the executive shouldn’t have such powers. DOGE is also an example of this. No clue whether for the better or worse. But the mechanism being used was put in place by Obama during affordable care act overhauls, as part of USDS (US digital services).
  - acdha 1y ago
    What DOGE is doing is far beyond what Obama’s USDS was empowered to do, and in many cases appears to violate statute.
amalcon 1y ago
As with so many things here, the remedy for the executive just pulling some nonsense must be sought through the courts. That remedy is being sought, notably by affected businesses. Trump will simply argue that there is a security concern here, or something like that. The courts, as usual, will first decide which outcome they prefer. They will then try to find some reasoning that will give them that outcome without looking too foolish. The latter step is easy in this case, but it's at least plausible that the courts don't want to crash the global economy. So it could go either way. Regardless, this is likely to take a while. Courts are slow, especially on contentious issues. It's also possible that the executive just tries to ignore an unfavorable ruling, as they have already done in other instances; nobody really knows what will happen in that eventuality...
dagw 1y ago
explain the legal basis... tl:dr Congress has for various historical reasons decided to cede more and more power over trade regulation to the executive branch over the years, starting all the way back in the 30s. This has resulted in the president having almost unilateral leeway to decide what constitutes "security concerns or unfair practices" when it comes to trade. And until congress passes a bill to reign in that power, it is probably legal for the president to decide that almost anything is 'unfair' and that basically any response is reasonable.
lokar 1y ago
There are a bunch of places in US law where congress grants the president very broad and often vague powers, if the president declares an emergency. They generally very unclear about what constitutes an emergency, deferring to the judgement of the president. There is not a lot of case law on this, so the final outcome is unpredictable.

piva00 1y ago

Disclaimer: not American, not living in the USA. All the analysis I've read about it say that the one-sided implementation of broad tariffs is not legal according to current US laws. It doesn't matter though until it's litigated, goes through courts, appeals, Supreme Court, while all that process is ongoing the tariffs are there. And who the fuck knows how the Supreme Court will decide on this in the end?

mwkaufma 1y ago

Trump invoked a "state of emergency"

rsynnott 1y ago

What Trump's doing may be illegal, either on the basis that the law under which it is being done is itself unconstitutional (in that it delegates the power to set taxes from Congress, which isn't supposed to happen) or in that he is misusing that law (in that it is supposed to be for emergencies). Lawsuits are being taken against the state on both bases.

outside1234 1y ago

He only has the ability to enact tariffs in an emergency, which he claims is the case, because "fentanyl", but probably will not live up to legal scrutiny. The challenge of course, is that it takes a lot of time to legally challenge it, and in the meantime, we have this chaos. This is why choosing a moral, steady, wise leader is important. The system can't keep up with the alternative.

miketery 1y ago
The conclusion shouldn’t be about choosing a wise or moral leader, that’s an unknown and not a guarantee whether someone will remain wise. The conclusion ought to be that the executive shouldn’t have such powers. DOGE is also an example of this. No clue whether for the better or worse. But the mechanism being used was put in place by Obama during affordable care act overhauls, as part of USDS (US digital services).
- acdha 1y ago
  What DOGE is doing is far beyond what Obama’s USDS was empowered to do, and in many cases appears to violate statute.

amalcon 1y ago

As with so many things here, the remedy for the executive just pulling some nonsense must be sought through the courts. That remedy is being sought, notably by affected businesses. Trump will simply argue that there is a security concern here, or something like that. The courts, as usual, will first decide which outcome they prefer. They will then try to find some reasoning that will give them that outcome without looking too foolish. The latter step is easy in this case, but it's at least plausible that the courts don't want to crash the global economy. So it could go either way. Regardless, this is likely to take a while. Courts are slow, especially on contentious issues. It's also possible that the executive just tries to ignore an unfavorable ruling, as they have already done in other instances; nobody really knows what will happen in that eventuality...

dagw 1y ago

explain the legal basis... tl:dr Congress has for various historical reasons decided to cede more and more power over trade regulation to the executive branch over the years, starting all the way back in the 30s. This has resulted in the president having almost unilateral leeway to decide what constitutes "security concerns or unfair practices" when it comes to trade. And until congress passes a bill to reign in that power, it is probably legal for the president to decide that almost anything is 'unfair' and that basically any response is reasonable.

lokar 1y ago

There are a bunch of places in US law where congress grants the president very broad and often vague powers, if the president declares an emergency. They generally very unclear about what constitutes an emergency, deferring to the judgement of the president. There is not a lot of case law on this, so the final outcome is unpredictable.