Team Tangerine 2.0 thinks that a state government -- here, the State of California -- must bring this claim inside the private party / local commerce disputes mechanism (called the ICT) -- in DC. That contention is silly, with all due respect. This is not some small contract dispute between two private shoe-makers. This is a state v. fed / dispute, of grave Constitutional dimensions.
The entire state of California -- a sovereign entity, itself -- asserts (correctly) that Trump acting alone, cannot lay or collect any tax -- not without a separate Act of the Congress, which holds that sole power in the Constitution. And make no mistake: this tariff regime is plainly a new tax, on all California businesses. Not just one, or a few.
Here's the very well reasoned 67 pager in full -- and a bit:
. . .The Constitution assigns the power to impose tariffs exclusively to Congress. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1 (“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises . . .”). The President has no independent authority to impose or alter tariffs. See Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 585. Congress has delegated certain tariff authority to the President in a series of statutory enactments codified under Title 19 of the U.S. Code, which is denominated “Customs Duties.” See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1338, 1862, 2132(a), 2253, 2411-2419. Those statutes expressly delegate the power to impose tariffs, and then carefully circumscribe the President’s exercise of that power. For instance, Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 explicitly grants the President the authority to “declare new or additional duties” on imports from countries that have discriminated against U.S. products or commerce, but only after a 30-day waiting period and only up to 50 percent ad valorem. 19 U.S.C. § 1338(a), (d), (e). Similarly, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 explicitly authorizes the President to impose “duties” on imports in order “to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits,” but only for “a period not exceeding 150 days”. . . .
The President may. . . negotiate trade agreements addressing tariff rates on behalf of the United States under a Trade Promotion Authority, but any such agreement only becomes law through implementing legislation. See Christopher A. Casey & Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IF 10038, Trade Promotion Authority 1 (Feb. 20, 2024). . . .
One further tension between defendants’ interpretation and the statutory context: Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA applies only to “property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest,” 50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added). Yet tariffs are often paid on property in which a foreign country or national no longer has any interest because the property has already entered the United States and been taken under the full control of the U.S. importer at the time the U.S. importer pays the tariff. See, e.g., U.S. Customs & Border Protection, Entry Summary and Post Release Processes. . . (last modified Apr. 10, 2025); Learning Res., 2025 WL 1525376, at *10. . . .
Onward -- Trump's lawyers are among the least competent -- at any level of government -- we've ever seen in public life, almost to a person [in Trump 1.0, Ty Cobb. . . was perhaps the sole exception]. But overall, no surprise there: low-brow people. . . attract low-brow help. That has been endlessly been shown to be true.
On now, to a great night under the stars. . . joy, lies ahead. Smile. . . .
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment