Tonight in Your Rights: Trump's tariffs face skeptical court
A three-judge panel sharply questions Trump's power to impose tariffs. A federal appeals court protects drag shows, and more.
Legal decisions being made now will shape freedoms for a generation. Follow our in-depth accountability journalism, paired with action-oriented information so you can express your views, by upgrading now.
Donald Trump claims that he has the power to impose any tariff that he wants on any country, anywhere in the world, any time that he wants, and no court can do anything about it.
But a three-judge panel from the court specifically tasked with international trade law appears likely to disagree with that proposition.
The hearing fell a day after the Trump administration’s precipitous retreat on China tariffs in a capitulation welcomed by the Wall Street Journal editorial board.
Possible Action Item:
The U.S. Constitution vests Congress with the authority to impose tariffs, and callers across the country have reminded lawmakers of their power.
On Tuesday, Judge Jane A. Restani, a Ronald Reagan appointee on the Court of International Trade, chided the government’s attorney Eric Hamilton for defending the policy of it in court.
“We don’t deal with policy,” Restani said. “We deal with law.”
She added later: "The point is, don't argue policy to the court. That's not our business."
Though Restani asked the sharpest questions, the other two judges — Trump-appointee Timothy Reif and Gary S. Katzmann, a Barack Obama appointee — did not seem persuaded by the government’s position.
“Fundamentally, why isn’t this a separation of powers issue?” asked Katzmann.
It was the first legal test of Trump’s authority to impose tariffs without congressional approval, before a court that’s obscure to the general public, and it didn’t seem to go well for Trump.
The panel, comprised of judges appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents, questioned Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law that does not mention tariffs. Trump is the only president who has claimed the authority to impose levies based on the statute.
The legal challenge that went to a hearing today began when five small businesses sued Trump and members of his administration, saying that the “unprecedented power grab” carried “severe” consequences for their companies and the global economy.
“Defendants’ position amounts to an unlimited, unreviewable executive power to impose any tariffs, in any amount, on any country, at any time,” the challengers wrote in a 38-page legal brief. “So long as the President declares a national emergency—a determination Defendants claim is itself unreviewable—his authority to impose taxes in the form of tariffs on the American people is, under the Defendants’ logic, essentially unlimited.”
“This breathtaking power grab is illegal for multiple reasons,” the brief continues.
The challengers are V.O.S. Selections, Inc., a New York-based wine importer; Plastic Services and Products, LLC, a Utah-based manufacturer; MicroKits, LLC, a Virginia-based electronics maker; FishUSA Inc., a Pennsylvania-based retailer; and Terry Precision Cycling, LLC, a Vermont-based sports apparel brand.
Florida’s anti-drag law remains blocked
Today, a federal appeals court upheld a ruling blocking a Florida law criminalizing taking minors to drag shows, in a ruling rebuking the Sunshine State’s “shotgun” approach to the First Amendment.
“Justice Potter Stewart famously offered a non-definition of obscenity: ‘I know it when I see it,’” the 2-1 majority’s opinion of the conservative 11th Circuit begins. “Many know Justice Stewart’s quip. But it’s not, in fact, the law.”
U.S. Circuit Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum, an Obama appointee, wrote the ruling for the majority.
“The Constitution demands specificity when the state restricts speech. Requiring clarity in speech regulations shields us from the whims of government censors. And the need for clarity is especially strong when the government takes the legally potent step of labeling speech ‘obscene,’” she wrote. “An ‘I know it when I see it’ test would unconstitutionally empower those who would limit speech to arbitrarily enforce the law. But the First Amendment empowers speakers instead.”
Last year, the Florida Senate passed the Protection of Children Act, making it a misdemeanor to “knowingly admit a child to an adult live performance.”
When signing the law, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) defined that phrase to include drag shows, but the judges found the vague law picked up the wrong instrument to supposedly protect children.
“The Act prohibits children’s admission to ‘live performances’ that Florida considers obscene for minors,” the majority wrote. “But by providing only vague guidance as to which performances it prohibits, the Act wields a shotgun when the First Amendment allows a scalpel at most.”
Read the full ruling here.
Trump reverses himself on climate websites
Facing litigation, the Trump administration backpedaled on its effort to purge climate-related government websites.
It’s a victory for the Columbia University-based Knight First Amendment Institute in its case Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York v. USDA, fighting the removal of the website on free speech grounds in the Southern District of New York.
In a recent letter to the court, the government informed the judge that it has begun restoring the websites at issue in the case.
“The process of restoring the Removed Content is already underway, and the Agency expects to substantially complete the restoration process in approximately two weeks,” the letter states.
The group’s attorney Stephanie Krent celebrated the concession.
“This is a major victory and an important first step. Members of the public, including our clients, rely on information from USDA to understand how climate change is affecting our nation's forests, food supply, and energy systems,” Krent wrote in a statement. “USDA was wrong to remove these webpages in the first place, and it must comply with federal law going forward.”
States sue over billions in transport funding
The Trump administration’s attempt to tie billions in transportation funding to immigration enforcement challenged in court by 20 states.
“The funding at issue was authorized by Congress, and Congress imposed no requirement for States to cooperate with immigration enforcement as a condition for receiving funding,” the attorneys general write in a 63-page complaint. “Indeed, the statutes and funding at issue—which sustain roads, highways, bridges, and other transportation projects—have nothing to do with immigration enforcement.”
The lawsuit asks a federal judge to find that the funding condition oversteps Trump’s power, violates the Constitution’s Spending Clause, and is arbitrary and capricious under the Administration Procedure Act.
Fox 5 D.C.’s Katie Barlow: All Rise News is a “must-read”
Attorney and journalist Katie Barlow, from the Fox 5 D.C. program “In The Courts,” featured All Rise News in a segment focusing on our mission of civic engagement.
Katie is the rare type of journalist who regularly educates the public on such topics as the Federal Register’s notice and comment period, and so her viewers were already primed to understand our recent story on Trump’s rule change justifying his purge of Biden-appointed immigration judges.
She has a knack for simplifying complex legal issues and dockets, particularly in her 3-minute videos with SCOTUSblog, now owned by The Dispatch.
You can watch our conversation here.
Media appearances
Only a few days into the week, we’ve been featured on Fox 5 D.C., BBC Newshour, and BBC Radio Scotland, discussing such topics Stephen Miller, habeas corpus, our editorial mission, and the trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs.
Also, look out for my scheduled Substack Live with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., at 3 p.m. ET on Thursday, and my conversation with
of at noon on Friday.
Thank you for all this good information. It’s a good read. Also congratulations on all the press. Excellent interview on Fox5.
I absolutely love this substack, and the way you break down the law - especially how each and every abuse of power connects to something even more far-reaching and devastating to the rule of law, our Constitution and our very democracy.
Your thought-provoking and easy to understand explanations of rulings, the "why's" of a particular ruling, are so insightful, and several times since becoming a subscriber I have felt the pull to delve a little deeper into different topics, which has been so eye-opening!
Thank you for everything you do, I have tried to be a "good citizen" all my life (informed voter, volunteering in my community, speaking out for the voiceless, etc), but this substack, along with a few other great ones, actually buoy me, help pick me up when I feel weary, and for that, more than anything else you do, I thank you and revere you, and appreciate you so much more than you will ever know 💙🇺🇸🗽💙