Donald Trump’s vowing to fight the ruling that many of his imposed trade tariffs are illegal.
The US Court of Appeals has ruled Trump went too far when he declared national emergencies to impose the sweeping import tariffs.
The tariffs remain in place until mid-October to allow a Supreme Court appeal.
Waikato University international law expert Al Gillespie says it's a 50-50 chance whether or not Trump's appeal will be accepted by the Supreme Court.
He says that although Trump has a balance that favours him in the Supreme Court, the American judges are independent people.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Sunday Session podcast with Francesca Rudkin
from News talks'b Right.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Donald Trump's vowing to fight the ruling that many of
his imposed trade tariffs are illegal. The US Court of
Appeals has ruled Trump went too far when he declared
national emergencies to impose the sweeping import tariffs, So the
tariffs remain in place until mid October to allow a
Supreme Court appeal. So what does this all mean and
what happens if the Supreme Court upholds this ruling. Waikato
(00:35):
University international law expert Alderletteski is with me. Now.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
Good morning, ol, Good morning, Francesca.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Did you expect this from the Appeals Court?
Speaker 3 (00:45):
In part? I? Did? At base? You've got a problem
that the Americans divide their law very clearly, and it's
to Congress, which can set taxes and tariffs. But mister Trump,
as he often does, has found an older law that
allows him to have times of national emergency where he
can do certain economic measures. That law from nineteen seventy
(01:07):
seven allows him to do in times of national emergency
which he declares certain acts which he thinks are necessary
for the country. So in the past, other presidents have
used it to sort of like say, seize the assets
of the Taliban after the attack in two thousand and one.
Mister Trump's gone further. He's tried to say that the
trade and balance is a national emergency. Therefore he concept
(01:28):
tariffs that's not in the law and its contrary to
the Constitution. So I'm not surprised it's happened.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
So what does this mean for his overall economic plan?
I mean, it's been said to be this is the
biggest blow to as tariff and economic plan to date
so far.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
I think what it means if the Supreme Court upholds it,
and that's a fifty to fifty question right now, that
it would be chaos for America because everything that has
been achieved would have to be undone or the negotiation
THROUGHUN the new trade deals would stop, and countries you've
can ask the compensation for what they've already lost.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
So Trump has to appeal. Do you think there's any
chance they'll rule in his favor.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
Well, it's at the Supreme Court, and although he has
a balance that favors him in terms of the conservative judges,
that they're still independent people and American judges will still
see the value of the Constitution more than the value
of the president, and that that's the correct way to
approach it. So I wouldn't say it's as certain that
(02:32):
he will win this as previous cases, because the Constitution
is very clear. It's Congress that has these powers for
tariffs and taxes, and mister Trump has taken over those powers,
you know, for his own purposes, but you know, in
his mind for the good of the country. But it's questionable,
it's a fair question whether he has the authority to
do that.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
What would he need to do to keep the tariffs
in place? Can you see an out for him? Can
you see his argument here to keep them in place?
Speaker 3 (03:00):
I think he's going to argue that it is a
national emergency, which is a self deed by the president,
and that the threat was overwhelming and there was no
alternative and he had to act. But the challenge he's
got is that the language of the nineteen seventy seven Act,
which allows the National Emergency designation, does not mention tariffs,
(03:22):
and so he's got to argue for an extension of
the law so that he can get what he wants.
It fails, it will be very problematic for America, but
not for the rest of the international community.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
So yeah, what will it mean? I mean, what rights
of the countries that have had tariff slept, you know
on them have What could they do against Trump in America?
Or is it as simple as Okay, the tariffs are
gone and we're back to normal. I mean, where do
you go from here?
Speaker 3 (03:48):
Well, like every day with mister Trump as uncertainty. Yeah,
and so it's not really clear what will happen. It's
possible that he could try to get Congress together so
to actually get the tariffs to prove through Congress under
his own kind of urgency, or he may try to
just reboot the cross or it could just completely go
(04:09):
to chaos and everything falls apart because a lot of countries,
including their own, have invested a lot of time and
good faith effort trying to negotiate implicate the United States
as it these measures, But if it's the American Supreme
Court which stops them, it means that a lot of
that effort has been wasted and people will say, well,
we want conversation for what we've just spent on that.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
So that could be an issue, but essentially probably the
trade deals would just revert back to what they were.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Yeah, I think that's a fair year, and the trade
deals and the lack of tariffs and so, but we
won't know until the Supreme Court rules on this, which
I think will also be into urgency, and that will
be buy in the middle of October, so it'll happen
quite quickly. But it's by no means certain that he
will win on this.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
It's a bit of a mess, isn't it. L I mean,
it's very tough for people who have just made a
whole of adjustments to deal with the new tariffs and
things sitting here. I mean, I suppose you just put
one foot in front of the other and keep going,
you know as usual at the moment.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
Don't you. You've got to just and trust the process.
And part of the problem here is that the overall
uncertainty into system is bad for the economy, and so
you want stability. Certain countries and companies and individuals can
invest and rely on existing established treaties and deals which
have been negotiated over generations. But mister Trump sees international
(05:31):
rules very differently, and so it's not just with regards
to this area of trade. You can also set in
the area of security where he thinks more politics than law,
and so he's willing to negotiate things that others would
not have previously touched.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
I was going to ask you whether you think this
is like to have an impact on the way he's operating,
because it would be fair to say that he is
pushing some boundaries, operating on a fine line when it
comes to the law.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
I think if he fails at the Supreme Court, he
won't surrender. He will find another route to achieve his goal.
He'll probably find some other law in the way that
mister Trump has some the best legal scholars in minds
and historians around him. They're excellent at digging up old
laws and exceptions and men trying to stretch them to
a new situation. It's not illegal, but it's certainly innovative.
(06:17):
And I imagine that will continue if he founds at
the Supreme Court. I can't see him saying, well, that's
it will now.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Starts uncertain and inconvenient. Is as all? Azil? Do you
find it quite interesting?
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Well?
Speaker 3 (06:30):
I do international law, and so it's every day is interesting.
But it's just continual, like whether you're talking about Ukraine
or Europe, or trade or climate change. He has created
a lot of uncertainty and challenge, sometimes for the good,
sometimes for the negative. But each day is different, and
(06:52):
you almost saud just turn on the news each show
to see what change has happened overnight.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Love you to talk to you, ol just really quickly
you introduce, think this will be all wrapped up by October?
Do you think end of October?
Speaker 3 (07:02):
That's the time that the Appeals Court is given for
it to be resolved, and so it'll get to the
Supreme Court quite quickly, and I imagine there'll be a
decision under urgency, So hopefully we'll know what's happening by October.
But for all those keys involved, I'd just say, as
you suggested, just one foot in front of the other
and just hope that good sense prevails.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
For more from the Sunday session with Francesca Rudkin, listen
live to News Talks it'd be from nine am Sunday,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Sunday Session podcast with Francesca Rudkin
from News talks'b Right.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Donald Trump's vowing to fight the ruling that many of
his imposed trade tariffs are illegal. The US Court of
Appeals has ruled Trump went too far when he declared
national emergencies to impose the sweeping import tariffs, So the
tariffs remain in place until mid October to allow a
Supreme Court appeal. So what does this all mean and
what happens if the Supreme Court upholds this ruling. Waikato
(00:35):
University international law expert Alderletteski is with me. Now.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
Good morning, ol, Good morning, Francesca.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Did you expect this from the Appeals Court?
Speaker 3 (00:45):
In part? I? Did? At base? You've got a problem
that the Americans divide their law very clearly, and it's
to Congress, which can set taxes and tariffs. But mister Trump,
as he often does, has found an older law that
allows him to have times of national emergency where he
can do certain economic measures. That law from nineteen seventy
(01:07):
seven allows him to do in times of national emergency
which he declares certain acts which he thinks are necessary
for the country. So in the past, other presidents have
used it to sort of like say, seize the assets
of the Taliban after the attack in two thousand and one.
Mister Trump's gone further. He's tried to say that the
trade and balance is a national emergency. Therefore he concept
(01:28):
tariffs that's not in the law and its contrary to
the Constitution. So I'm not surprised it's happened.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
So what does this mean for his overall economic plan?
I mean, it's been said to be this is the
biggest blow to as tariff and economic plan to date
so far.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
I think what it means if the Supreme Court upholds it,
and that's a fifty to fifty question right now, that
it would be chaos for America because everything that has
been achieved would have to be undone or the negotiation
THROUGHUN the new trade deals would stop, and countries you've
can ask the compensation for what they've already lost.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
So Trump has to appeal. Do you think there's any
chance they'll rule in his favor.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
Well, it's at the Supreme Court, and although he has
a balance that favors him in terms of the conservative judges,
that they're still independent people and American judges will still
see the value of the Constitution more than the value
of the president, and that that's the correct way to
approach it. So I wouldn't say it's as certain that
(02:32):
he will win this as previous cases, because the Constitution
is very clear. It's Congress that has these powers for
tariffs and taxes, and mister Trump has taken over those powers,
you know, for his own purposes, but you know, in
his mind for the good of the country. But it's questionable,
it's a fair question whether he has the authority to
do that.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
What would he need to do to keep the tariffs
in place? Can you see an out for him? Can
you see his argument here to keep them in place?
Speaker 3 (03:00):
I think he's going to argue that it is a
national emergency, which is a self deed by the president,
and that the threat was overwhelming and there was no
alternative and he had to act. But the challenge he's
got is that the language of the nineteen seventy seven Act,
which allows the National Emergency designation, does not mention tariffs,
(03:22):
and so he's got to argue for an extension of
the law so that he can get what he wants.
It fails, it will be very problematic for America, but
not for the rest of the international community.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
So yeah, what will it mean? I mean, what rights
of the countries that have had tariff slept, you know
on them have What could they do against Trump in America?
Or is it as simple as Okay, the tariffs are
gone and we're back to normal. I mean, where do
you go from here?
Speaker 3 (03:48):
Well, like every day with mister Trump as uncertainty. Yeah,
and so it's not really clear what will happen. It's
possible that he could try to get Congress together so
to actually get the tariffs to prove through Congress under
his own kind of urgency, or he may try to
just reboot the cross or it could just completely go
(04:09):
to chaos and everything falls apart because a lot of countries,
including their own, have invested a lot of time and
good faith effort trying to negotiate implicate the United States
as it these measures, But if it's the American Supreme
Court which stops them, it means that a lot of
that effort has been wasted and people will say, well,
we want conversation for what we've just spent on that.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
So that could be an issue, but essentially probably the
trade deals would just revert back to what they were.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
Yeah, I think that's a fair year, and the trade
deals and the lack of tariffs and so, but we
won't know until the Supreme Court rules on this, which
I think will also be into urgency, and that will
be buy in the middle of October, so it'll happen
quite quickly. But it's by no means certain that he
will win on this.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
It's a bit of a mess, isn't it. L I mean,
it's very tough for people who have just made a
whole of adjustments to deal with the new tariffs and
things sitting here. I mean, I suppose you just put
one foot in front of the other and keep going,
you know as usual at the moment.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
Don't you. You've got to just and trust the process.
And part of the problem here is that the overall
uncertainty into system is bad for the economy, and so
you want stability. Certain countries and companies and individuals can
invest and rely on existing established treaties and deals which
have been negotiated over generations. But mister Trump sees international
(05:31):
rules very differently, and so it's not just with regards
to this area of trade. You can also set in
the area of security where he thinks more politics than law,
and so he's willing to negotiate things that others would
not have previously touched.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
I was going to ask you whether you think this
is like to have an impact on the way he's operating,
because it would be fair to say that he is
pushing some boundaries, operating on a fine line when it
comes to the law.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
I think if he fails at the Supreme Court, he
won't surrender. He will find another route to achieve his goal.
He'll probably find some other law in the way that
mister Trump has some the best legal scholars in minds
and historians around him. They're excellent at digging up old
laws and exceptions and men trying to stretch them to
a new situation. It's not illegal, but it's certainly innovative.
(06:17):
And I imagine that will continue if he founds at
the Supreme Court. I can't see him saying, well, that's
it will now.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Starts uncertain and inconvenient. Is as all? Azil? Do you
find it quite interesting?
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Well?
Speaker 3 (06:30):
I do international law, and so it's every day is interesting.
But it's just continual, like whether you're talking about Ukraine
or Europe, or trade or climate change. He has created
a lot of uncertainty and challenge, sometimes for the good,
sometimes for the negative. But each day is different, and
(06:52):
you almost saud just turn on the news each show
to see what change has happened overnight.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
Love you to talk to you, ol just really quickly
you introduce, think this will be all wrapped up by October?
Do you think end of October?
Speaker 3 (07:02):
That's the time that the Appeals Court is given for
it to be resolved, and so it'll get to the
Supreme Court quite quickly, and I imagine there'll be a
decision under urgency, So hopefully we'll know what's happening by October.
But for all those keys involved, I'd just say, as
you suggested, just one foot in front of the other
and just hope that good sense prevails.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
For more from the Sunday session with Francesca Rudkin, listen
live to News Talks it'd be from nine am Sunday,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.