September 2, 2025 • 33 mins
Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago-Kent College of Law, discusses a federal judge finding that Trump sending troops to Los Angeles was illegal under federal law. Jimmy Gurule, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, discusses a federal appeals court finding that Trump’s tariffs are illegal. June Grasso hosts.
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 (00:02):
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
If I didn't send the National Guard into Los Angeles,
you wouldn't I would be making an announcement today, I'd
be talking about Huntsville, and I'd simultaneously be saying, by
the way, the Olympics is not coming to Los Angeles.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
But a federal judge has found there was no rebellion,
nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the
protests and enforce the law in Los Angeles. This summer,
Judge Stephen Bryer ruled that the Trump administration wilfully violated
federal law by deploying National Guard troops and US Marines
(00:42):
to carry out local law enforcement in Los Angeles. In
a scathing ruling, Briar noted that Trump has stated his
intention to deploy National Guard troops to other cities across
the country, raising concerns that Trump is creating a national
police force with the president as its chief. And today
(01:03):
in the Oval Office, Trump confirmed that Chicago is next
that he'll direct federal law enforcement intervention to combat crime
in Chicago, despite staunch opposition from state and local officials.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
If the governor Illinois would call up, call me up.
I would love to do it. Now we're going to
do it anyway. We have the right to do it
because I have an obligation to protect this country and
that includes Baltimore. I saw where Governor Moore was asking
me to take a walk down the street of Baltimore. Well,
Baltimore is a very unsafe place.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Illinois Governor JB. Pritzker reiterated today that crime is down
in Chicago and that the city doesn't need, nor does
it want, federal troops there.
Speaker 4 (01:52):
None of this is about fighting crime or making Chicago safer.
None of it. For Trump, it's about testing his power
and producing a political drama to cover up for his corruption.
If you need any proof of this that it's all
a big show.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
My guest is constitutional law expert Harold Krant, a professor
at the Chicago Kent College of Law. Hal is judge
Briar's decision a complete refutation of Trump sending troops into
Los Angeles.
Speaker 5 (02:28):
It's a partial reputation, and indeed, just Buyer's order allows
the military to remain. What he has done is delineate
what they can and cannot do. And so this is
an effort by the judge this steer clear of the
earlier Ninth Circuit decision which lifted a day on his
earlier preliminary injunction. So the court here is trying to
(02:50):
be careful in trying to say what the National Guard
can do and can't do. And it's up to the
Ninth Circuit to react, and I'm sure they'll react one
way or the other.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
But how didn't he find that sending the National Guard
in was a violation of the Passikamatatis Act.
Speaker 5 (03:06):
He did, but he said that there were some duties
that the federalized National Guard could in fact undertake consistent
with the pass Coomatatas Act, but that the fact was
that he made a factual finding that the troops had
done more than that they had engaged in general law
enforcement activity, which she said was proscribed under the Pussikamatatis
(03:30):
Act and tradition. So he made it more narrow nuanced
finding that they had previously saying he didn't even question
the ability of the President to federalize the National Guard
against the governor's wishes, which obviously took place earlier in
the year. But he said, even if the president can
do that, they can't engage in general law enforcement activities,
(03:53):
including covering ice agents, including dispersing crowd and so forth.
Speaker 6 (04:01):
So it's a.
Speaker 5 (04:01):
More narrow decision than he issued previously, and we'll see
how the Ninth Circuit again reacts to it.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
So he said, there were indeed protests in Los Angeles
and some individuals engaged in violence, yet there was no rebellion,
nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the
protests and enforce the law.
Speaker 6 (04:23):
There was really two sides. The earlier had ruled that.
Speaker 5 (04:26):
The President lacked authority to federalize the National Guard because
of the reasons you suggested, And so he is trying
to create a decision, in my mind here that is
consistent with the broad principles he articulated, previously limiting the
president's abilities to nationalize the Federal Guard, but then, realizing
that the Ninth Circuit had overruled him in part previously,
(04:48):
then decided to add more granually that even if the
President could nationalize the National Guard, that they could not
engage in sort of typical law enforcement authority, which he said,
including you know, dispersing crowds, including protecting ice agents and
so forth. But I think the consensus has been that
(05:09):
the president cannot nationalize the National Guard. You know, unless
all typical law enforcement has collapsed, you can't enforce court
orders or there's an insurrection, and obviously those two things
are not in place in Los Angeles. In my mind, though,
this is a sideshow because President Trump continually says that
(05:32):
he can federalize the National Guard and send them wherever
he wants, to include Chicago, just for ordinary criminal law enforcements.
So it's clear that there's a clash between the Court's
view of the limits of the president's authority under the
Pasi Comatatus Act and what the President thinks he can
do and has continually espoused he can do in terms
(05:54):
of federalizing the troops at a moment's notice.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
The judge cited us he span broadcast of Trump's August
twenty seventh Cabinet meeting where he discussed sending the National
Guard into Chicago and said, quote, I have the right
to do anything I want to do.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
So Judge Briar cited.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
That, and then he expanded his order beyond Los Angeles
to all of California.
Speaker 5 (06:21):
You're currently limited the order to California, but decided that
because California itself was a plaintiff, he was empowered to
extend the relief to grant protection to the plaintiff in
the case.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
Do you think that went too far?
Speaker 5 (06:36):
Well, My only concern about the Court's opinion is that
the Court seemed to be dismissing the present's sort of
inherent authority as a statutory matter. I think the Court
is on strong ground, both historically and in terms of
textually of understanding the limits of the passe comatatus Act.
I think the Court was a little bit quick in
(06:57):
terms of dismissing the presence sort of inherent authority under
the Commander and Chief clause of the Constitution. Clearly, presidents
have to make tough costs, tough calls in terms of
lias on street, tough cause in terms of potential invasions
and so forth, and so if the president is said,
we need to protect federal buildings, we need to protect
(07:21):
federal instrumentalities, I think that article to itself might give
the president arguably does give it the president that kind
of authority to order troops to protect those even if
states say they don't need it. So that's not at
stake here, and President Trump's news conference clearly illustrates that
that's not at stake here. But I think that might
(07:43):
be a weakness in the Court's opinion, because I do
think that the chief executive has to make those tough
calls if there are threats in the president's mind to
federal instrumentalities within the States.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
What Trump has said today is there are lots of
murderers in Chicago, and crime is up in Chicago, and
they're going in.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
But he didn't say when.
Speaker 5 (08:08):
But there's absolutely no justification for what the President say
he's going to do in Chicago, which is even more
indefensible than what he did in California. And I would
expect that the mayor of Chicago, Mayor Johnson, and the
governor of Illinois, Governor Pritsko, will immediately go to court
not only cite the most recent Judge Briar decision, but
(08:30):
cite just more convincingly that the President has acknowledged the
purpose for why he's sending in troops into Chicago, and
that's absolutely prohibited by the pussy com pat effect under
any construction of the terms of the statute.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
So Judge Briar's decision has no effect in Illinois correct,
But is the reasoning strong enough to apply to Illinois.
Speaker 5 (08:57):
I think that reasoning will over the same situation, and again,
Chicago is an easier case. And I think that to
the extent that the President would say that ICE agents
are under attack and that Key as Caman achieved, can't
ensure an orderly function of immigration processes in this country
(09:17):
without calling in supportive troops. That would be the strongest
sort of justification that I can understand in the California context,
for the use of either the federalized National Guard or
for the Marines. But he clearly in Chicago's basically is
that I don't even need that justification. I can send
troops wherever I want, whenever I want, because I'm the
(09:38):
President of the United States. And that downright is frightening.
Not only is it clearly outlawed by the pussy Coomatata
fact and by the history that led to the Act,
but it's a huge step towards autocracy.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
What if he just instead of sending in the National
Guard or military troops, if you just sent in lots
and lots of federal agbi dea ice, Is there any
a problem with that?
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Legally?
Speaker 5 (10:06):
There may be pockets of restrictions, but I think ordinarily
that would be within his power, and certainly he can
shift FBI agents over to EIST as temporary details. He
has the power to do that under prior statute. So
in that respect he could accomplish at least some of
his goals. But again, he could not engage those FBI
(10:27):
agents in terms of taking over for general law enforcement
for Chicago, because the FBI is not authorized. The EE
agents aren't authorized to deal with conventional robbery, theft, et cetera.
That are state crimes, not federal crimes.
Speaker 3 (10:42):
So the Insurrection Act is an exception to the posse
comma tatis law.
Speaker 5 (10:47):
That's correct. And so if he would deem that we
are under insurrection, I don't even know what the theory
would be in Chicago. But if he says that there
is an insurrection because undocumented worker are rising up in
arms against the authority, or he would say that some
other kind of indirection is taking place, then he could
(11:08):
justifiably use federal troops. He has not made that claim,
and indeed one is very far fetched given the facts
as we know them.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Now, and particularly in light of the fact that he
did not declare an insurrection on January sixth of twenty
twenty one. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show,
I'll continue this conversation with Professor Harold Krant of the
Chicago Kent College of Law. So what can Illinois governor
and Chicago's mayor do? I'm June Gross. When you're listening
(11:41):
to Bloomberg. President Donald Trump said today that he'll direct
federal law enforcement intervention to combat crime in Chicago, despite
staunch opposition from Chicago's mayor and Illinois governor.
Speaker 5 (11:55):
Well, we're going in.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
I didn't say when we're going in.
Speaker 4 (11:58):
We know before anything has happened here that the Trump
plan is to use any excuse to deploy armed military
personnel to Chicago. If someone flings a sandwich at an
Ice agent, Trump will try and go on TV and
declare an emergency in Chicago.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
I've been talking to Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago
Kent College of Law. So how before the break, we
were talking about Judge Briar's decision that the Trump administration
willfully broke federal law when they sent National Guard troops
to Los Angeles, and we were talking about the Insurrection
Act and that that's an exception to the Posse Comitatis
(12:37):
Act that Judge Briar said the president could have invoked.
Judge said, if the president wants to avoid the act's restrictions,
he must invoke a valid exception like the Insurrection Act,
along with its requisite showing that state and local law
enforcement are unable or unwilling to act.
Speaker 5 (12:54):
But when we had riots in the wake of the
sesssination of Martin Luther King, whom he had the unrest
because of the George Floyd murder, arguably local law enforcement
could not take the helm and preserve law and order.
And that is an exception of the Putico Tatus Act.
And indeed, the courts would be in difficult position if
(13:18):
the president made a careful finding that that is why
he is sending troops, that there is no local law
enforcement that can take care of law enforcement activities. He's
never made that finding, and given the fact that the
clim has gone down into these like Washington, d C
in Chicago, it's simply far fetched, which is understandably why
(13:38):
he doesn't want to make that kind of specific finding. So, yes,
presidents have sent in troops, and President Trump could in
the future respecting Congress, but not in these situations. Obviously,
the Constitution ascribes a principal role to Congress and deciding
when to introduce the military into civil in situations. Congress
(14:01):
has done so in the Passacacomma Titus Act as well
as the limitations in the Insurrection Act. And that's the
role that the Constitution gives to Congress, and pusident Trump
is just writing luckshot over the constitutional structure.
Speaker 3 (14:14):
The mayor of Chicago and the governor and other officials
held this press conference, and is there anything that the
governor or the mayor can do to stop him from
federalizing the National Guard? I mean, the National Guard is
supposedly under the governor's control, right, absolutely.
Speaker 5 (14:34):
But there are circumstances where the president can federalize the
National Guard. And at this point they may preemptibly go
to court. I'm sure they're discussing it both in terms
of filing lawsuit before the President sends troops or they'll
wait them out and at the first sign of when
the President does introduce troops into the streets of Chicago,
then they'll run into the federal.
Speaker 6 (14:55):
Court and hope for the best. I think they will.
Speaker 5 (14:58):
Receive a favorable reception in the Seventh Circuit in this area.
But time will tell.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
Suppose they started using the National Guard for other things
in Chicago or in Illinois, cleaning up the streets of
every town or something like that. Suppose they just use
the National Guard themselves.
Speaker 5 (15:15):
Yeah, I mean, the governor can do that, and the
governors in the past, have you used the National Guard
to help enhance the safety of their communities, But absent
the governor's directions, that president lacks the authority to do
so except for these delineated exceptions that Congress has carefully
fought through, And it would be up to the courts
then to respect that dividing line between Congress and the
President at least. Otherwise we're going to have not a
(15:38):
separation of powers of three equal branches, but everything will
be totally dominated by one branch.
Speaker 6 (15:43):
And that's something that the Framers were very cognizant.
Speaker 5 (15:46):
About, the fear of having one branch exceed too much
power to its own, and that's what we're confronting in
the near future.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
Tell us what the Ninth Circuit ruled before.
Speaker 5 (15:58):
It's said that it really difficult for courts of second
guests a justification by the President that there was simply
not sufficient local law enforcement to protect federal undertakings. In
this case, the federal undertakers, of course, were the Ice
agents attempting to round up undocumented individuals and sending them
(16:20):
out of the country. And so the court decided two.
Speaker 6 (16:23):
To one to not weigh in and say that they
have a hearing on whether.
Speaker 5 (16:28):
Or not the president's justification was pretext or not. And
so again the District Court here, Judge Bryer cleverly said,
even if that's true, that the president has violated the
comatatis Statute because it has not limited the use of
the troops for those permissible functions. So they didn't want
to get into pretext or non pretext, but rather just
(16:50):
said that what in fact the troops did in Los
Angeles exceeded their permissible bounds under the statute.
Speaker 3 (16:59):
So, I mean, if the Seventh Circuit follows the Ninth Circuit,
then they wouldn't stop the troops from coming in.
Speaker 5 (17:05):
I don't think that's going to happen. I mean, I
think that it obviously depends on what district court judge
gets the case. Once it's filed, assumably by Governor Pritzker,
But I think that the logical outcome here is different
because of the fact that there's no fig leaf. The
President has not even come close to complying with the
(17:26):
Postacoma Thomas Act. He's just said local law enforcement time
and a time at news conferences and not even suggesting
that there's an insurrection or a failure of the state
and local government to comply with judicial commands. So I
think the role is quite clear here in a lawsuit
is simply issue an injunction to say here outside your
(17:49):
lane and it would be up then into the Seventh
Circuit if there is an a junction to determine whether
to grant it or not, and I think they would
uphold it.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
And Judge Bryer said something that really resonates in light
of the fact that President Trump has talked about Chicago
and next Baltimore and New York. He said, it raises
concerns that they're creating a national police force with the
president as its chief. And that's what it seems to
(18:18):
be because it's about crime, which is usually a local issue.
Speaker 5 (18:21):
Yeah, it's one thing for the president as quasi governor
for DC to decide what's needed to maintain law and
order on DC streets. Obviously that's very controversial in his
own but it's another thing for him to do that
in states where there are governors trying to displace ubernatorial authority.
And of course, if you step back and look at this,
you know the President has said he's doing this in Chicago,
(18:44):
maybe New York, maybe Baltimore, But you don't hear about
New Orleans, Memphis, Saint Louis, places with higher crime rates
that are in Republican states. So again, to think about
what the president's accomplishing here, he's trying to flexis muscles
in a way which creates an incredibly dangerous precedent for
the entire country.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
Well, let's hope it doesn't happen. If it does, there's
certainly going to be a lot of litigation about it.
Thanks so much, Hal. That's Professor Harold Krent of the
Chicago Kent College of Law, coming up next on the
Bloomberg Law Show. A federal appeals court has ruled that
President Trump had no legal right to impose sweeping tariffs
(19:25):
on almost every country. But the next stop is the
Supreme Court. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
A federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump
had no legal right to impose sweeping tariffs on almost
every country. In a seven to four ruling, the US
(19:47):
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that Trump
overstepped his authority under an emergency powers law. It's a
major legal blow, but it largely upheld a made decision
by a special federal Trade court in New York.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
But it's a liberal court and it's going up to
the Supreme Court, who I think have been incredible people.
I think they've made very wise decisions. But the tariff question,
because without the tariffs' countries in serious, serious trouble. We've
taken in. Almost seventeen trillion dollars of investment is coming in.
(20:25):
Most of it is come in because of tariffs.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
The appeals court didn't strike down the tariffs immediately, allowing
the administration until mid October to appeal to the Supreme Court,
although Trump says they'll do so immediately. My guest is
Jimmy Garul, a professor at Notre Dame Law School and
the former Undersecretary for Enforcement at the Department of the Treasury.
(20:47):
Jimmy will you explain why the Federal Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled against Trump's tariffs.
Speaker 7 (20:53):
Well, first let me meet us back up. So on Friday,
as you state of, the US Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court decision by the
Court of International Trade. That decision was issued back in May,
and in that decision, the Court of International Trade set
aside five executive orders issued by President Trump that imposed
(21:13):
tariffs of unlimited duration on nearly all goods from merely
every country across the globe. So that decision was affirmed,
and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
held that AIPA the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, that
the authority under that statute to authorize the President to
(21:35):
regulate and this is an important term in the statute,
regulate imports. Does not authorize President Trump to impose tariffs
under either the reciprocal tariffs or the drug trafficking tariffs.
And so largely it was a statutory construction issue before
the court. And again the specific issue focused on this
(21:57):
term regulate and specifically that AIPA authorized as a president
to regulate imports and whether or not that authority includes
the authority to impose tariffs, and the Federal Court said, no,
it does not.
Speaker 3 (22:11):
So they didn't get into, you know, his claims about
the tariffs that they were to try to settle the
trade imbalance and the importation of fentenol.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Do they reach that at all?
Speaker 7 (22:24):
No, there really wasn't. It focused again on this particular language,
you know, the term regulate and what's the scope of
the meaning.
Speaker 5 (22:30):
Of that term.
Speaker 7 (22:31):
The court went on, you know, focusing on statutory construction
and look to other statutes that Congress had enacted that
authorized the president to impost tariffs and said, well, look,
with those federal statutes, Congress had imposed requirements on when
the president could impose tariffs and imposed limitations and said, well,
(22:56):
that's not the case here. You know that there were
very very few, you know, limitations on the president's authority
to impost tariffs under iepis has been leveraged by by
President Trump. They talked about legislative intent, that there was
no legislative intent and the statute to authorize the President
to impose triiffs. They highlighted the fact that the word
(23:19):
tariffs does not appear anywhere in the statute and therefore,
from a statutory construction perspective, the Court said, you know, no,
IPA doesn't provide the president of that authority. Now, having
said that, there were a couple of additional interesting arguments
that the Federal Court race. You know, one, they talked
(23:39):
about something called the major questions doctrine, and they said
that under the major questions doctrine, the Supreme Court has
held that if there is an asserted delegation of authority,
or if the president the executive branch is claiming that
Congress has transferred certain authority to the executive branch, if
(24:00):
based upon the history in the breast of that authority
that it would have vast economic and political significance, and
that's the term, you know, economic and political significance, then
there must be clear congressional authorization for the asserted power.
And here they claimed that there was no such clear
(24:22):
congressional authorization from Congress to the president to impose tariffs.
And then lastly, I think that the next major argument
that the Court raised and reaching its conclusion is they
argue that the government's argument that the president had this
authority was delegated to the executive branch by Congress violated
(24:44):
the non delegation doctrine, that this was an unconstitutional delegation
of power because Congress did not provide a sufficiently intelligible
principle that set forth the purpose of why Congress delegated
this power to impose tariffs to the president. And then
(25:05):
what were the boundaries, what were the legal boundaries on
this delegation of authority. So it was these combination of arguments,
again focusing primarily on the language of the statute that
the courts relied on in this conclusion striking down the tariffs.
Speaker 3 (25:24):
So what about the descent, the four judges and the descent,
why didn't they agree?
Speaker 7 (25:29):
Yeah, that's an excellent question, And so it was almost
kind of a tet for tet arguments, so that the
Center's arguing, well, you know, we think that the term
regulate is sufficient, that it does include the authority to
impose tariffs. And then with respect to the argument regarding
the major question doctrine and the non delegation doctrine, the
(25:51):
Descent raised a really interesting argument, and they said, well, yeah,
but this involves issues implicating national security and foreign policy,
and we think that the major questioned doctrine doesn't apply
in the context of the exercise of power by the
president to protect national security, defend national security, or in
(26:12):
the field of foreign affairs, and if it does, it
should be liberally applied, not in a narrow way, but
to afford the president to exercise terrorf authority, and the
same thing with a non delegation doctrine. That again, the
court should be very deferential to the president in the
field of national security and foreign policy. And that could
(26:32):
very well be an argument that the Supreme Court finds
persuasive in striking down the Federal Court decision and affirming
the tariffs.
Speaker 3 (26:43):
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled in the president's favor,
expanding and expanding and expanding presidential power.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
Do you think they're likely to do the same here.
Speaker 7 (26:54):
Well, the US Supreme Court is ruled in favor of
President Trump and against lower federal court decisions, and at
least sixteen rulings since April of twenty twenty five, and
you know, they've lifted injunctions that have been imposed on
actions taken by the president, again in favor of the
Trump administration. This is the so called you know, shadow docket.
(27:18):
And so the Supreme Court, based upon these decisions, they
seem to be very deferential to the president's exercise of
executive authority, and they seem to be comfortable and fine
with an expansion of the president's executive authority based upon
these previous rulings. And so I think if this pattern continues,
(27:42):
if we see this pattern continue, then then I think
it would likely result in a decision that's favorable to
President Trump and affirming his authority to impose Tariff's under AVA.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
I keep waiting to see what move by Trump will
be outrageous enough or extend his authority enough that the
Court is going to finally say, Okay, stop there.
Speaker 7 (28:05):
Yeah, it's hard to identify that benchmark, you know, when
that red line would be crossed, especially considering the fact
that the Supreme Court not that long ago, relatively recently
a role that the president is virtually immune for prosecution.
But any action taken by the President pursuing who is
(28:28):
Article two authorities, you know, he's immune and he can't
be criminally prosecuted, which I'm sure has only in bold
in the president in terms of really stretching the bounds,
you know, pressing the boundaries, you know, the extreme boundaries
of his authority.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
There are other laws that he could use.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
Scott Besant was talking about section three three eight to
the smooth Holly Terar Effect of nineteen thirty. Then I've
heard about the Trade Act of nineteen seventy four, So
I mean, what could he use if he wants to
stay away from a well.
Speaker 7 (29:01):
That's a secretary Vessent has recently commented on the Federal
Circuit Court decision and basically making two two points, you know. One,
he says that he is extremely confident that the Supreme
Court is going to uphold the Trump tariffs, and that
even if the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration
(29:23):
or limits its authority under AEPA, that there are several
other statutes enacted by Congress that the president could use
to continue the tariffs. Now, those statutes are not as
broad in scope as IEPA. Therefore, there would be certain
there would be additional prerequisites, you know, conditions and limitations
(29:48):
placed on the president with respect to imposing tariffs under
those statutes. But there certainly are other statutes that the
Trump administration could leverage to continue the tariffs.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
So they picked this because it was fast and easy.
Speaker 7 (30:05):
Yeah, yeah, largely largely so because again the requirements are
not as demanding as they are in some of these
other statutes, and the kind of limitations that are imposed
on those statutes aren't present with the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act. So I eba cleaner, quicker, easier. Let's take
(30:25):
the path of least resistance, which is ABA, instead of
going through these other statutes that are more complicated.
Speaker 3 (30:31):
So the tariffs still on steel, aluminum, and automobiles are
unaffected by this decision.
Speaker 7 (30:37):
Yes, that's correct, and the reason being is that those
tariffs were enacted under a different statute. They weren't authorized
under AEPA.
Speaker 1 (30:47):
I mean, so, how much of a setback is this
for Trump?
Speaker 7 (30:50):
Well, we'll see. I do think even if let's assume
that the Supreme Court affirms the Federal Circuit Court decision
striking down tariffs and RIPA, so then the administration has
to pursue Plan B. I do think that those other statutes, again,
they weren't narrow and focused, and they impose greater restrictions
(31:14):
and limitations. So that is going to I think cumulatively
limit the scope of the tariffs that are currently in place.
But at the end of the day, what does that mean?
You know, the president doesn't get one hundred percent of
the tariffs that he's imposed. He only gets eighty percent
or seventy five percent. We'll see, and I think that
(31:35):
that many of the tariffs will continue, but just based
on different authority. But I think that maybe the more
fundamental issue here is the uncertainty this decision by the
Federal Circuit is creating for investors in the economy. And
then what are the implications? So if the if the
AEPA tariffs are struck down, what are the implications of that?
(31:59):
So does that I mean, the tariffs that have been
paid under these executive orders have to be repaid, the
businesses that pay those tariffs have to be compensated. So
there's a lot of complicated What are the implications of
this with respect to ongoing negotiations with other countries the
(32:20):
United States and other countries involving the current tariffs. So
if the tariffs are struck down on RAIPA, is that
going to disrupt those negotiations or those negotiations going to
going to terminate? What's the effect going to be? And
so the ripple effects of the Supreme Court's decision, whichever
(32:41):
way it rules, is going to have I think a
substantial significant impact on the global economy.
Speaker 1 (32:48):
Thanks so much for joining me.
Speaker 5 (32:49):
Jimmy.
Speaker 3 (32:50):
That's Professor Jimmy Garoul of Notre Dame Law School. And
that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
our Bloomberg Law PODCAS. You can find them on Apple Podcasts,
Spotify and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast
Slash Law, And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law
(33:10):
Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm
June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
If I didn't send the National Guard into Los Angeles,
you wouldn't I would be making an announcement today, I'd
be talking about Huntsville, and I'd simultaneously be saying, by
the way, the Olympics is not coming to Los Angeles.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
But a federal judge has found there was no rebellion,
nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the
protests and enforce the law in Los Angeles. This summer,
Judge Stephen Bryer ruled that the Trump administration wilfully violated
federal law by deploying National Guard troops and US Marines
(00:42):
to carry out local law enforcement in Los Angeles. In
a scathing ruling, Briar noted that Trump has stated his
intention to deploy National Guard troops to other cities across
the country, raising concerns that Trump is creating a national
police force with the president as its chief. And today
(01:03):
in the Oval Office, Trump confirmed that Chicago is next
that he'll direct federal law enforcement intervention to combat crime
in Chicago, despite staunch opposition from state and local officials.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
If the governor Illinois would call up, call me up.
I would love to do it. Now we're going to
do it anyway. We have the right to do it
because I have an obligation to protect this country and
that includes Baltimore. I saw where Governor Moore was asking
me to take a walk down the street of Baltimore. Well,
Baltimore is a very unsafe place.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Illinois Governor JB. Pritzker reiterated today that crime is down
in Chicago and that the city doesn't need, nor does
it want, federal troops there.
Speaker 4 (01:52):
None of this is about fighting crime or making Chicago safer.
None of it. For Trump, it's about testing his power
and producing a political drama to cover up for his corruption.
If you need any proof of this that it's all
a big show.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
My guest is constitutional law expert Harold Krant, a professor
at the Chicago Kent College of Law. Hal is judge
Briar's decision a complete refutation of Trump sending troops into
Los Angeles.
Speaker 5 (02:28):
It's a partial reputation, and indeed, just Buyer's order allows
the military to remain. What he has done is delineate
what they can and cannot do. And so this is
an effort by the judge this steer clear of the
earlier Ninth Circuit decision which lifted a day on his
earlier preliminary injunction. So the court here is trying to
(02:50):
be careful in trying to say what the National Guard
can do and can't do. And it's up to the
Ninth Circuit to react, and I'm sure they'll react one
way or the other.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
But how didn't he find that sending the National Guard
in was a violation of the Passikamatatis Act.
Speaker 5 (03:06):
He did, but he said that there were some duties
that the federalized National Guard could in fact undertake consistent
with the pass Coomatatas Act, but that the fact was
that he made a factual finding that the troops had
done more than that they had engaged in general law
enforcement activity, which she said was proscribed under the Pussikamatatis
(03:30):
Act and tradition. So he made it more narrow nuanced
finding that they had previously saying he didn't even question
the ability of the President to federalize the National Guard
against the governor's wishes, which obviously took place earlier in
the year. But he said, even if the president can
do that, they can't engage in general law enforcement activities,
(03:53):
including covering ice agents, including dispersing crowd and so forth.
Speaker 6 (04:01):
So it's a.
Speaker 5 (04:01):
More narrow decision than he issued previously, and we'll see
how the Ninth Circuit again reacts to it.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
So he said, there were indeed protests in Los Angeles
and some individuals engaged in violence, yet there was no rebellion,
nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the
protests and enforce the law.
Speaker 6 (04:23):
There was really two sides. The earlier had ruled that.
Speaker 5 (04:26):
The President lacked authority to federalize the National Guard because
of the reasons you suggested, And so he is trying
to create a decision, in my mind here that is
consistent with the broad principles he articulated, previously limiting the
president's abilities to nationalize the Federal Guard, but then, realizing
that the Ninth Circuit had overruled him in part previously,
(04:48):
then decided to add more granually that even if the
President could nationalize the National Guard, that they could not
engage in sort of typical law enforcement authority, which he said,
including you know, dispersing crowds, including protecting ice agents and
so forth. But I think the consensus has been that
(05:09):
the president cannot nationalize the National Guard. You know, unless
all typical law enforcement has collapsed, you can't enforce court
orders or there's an insurrection, and obviously those two things
are not in place in Los Angeles. In my mind, though,
this is a sideshow because President Trump continually says that
(05:32):
he can federalize the National Guard and send them wherever
he wants, to include Chicago, just for ordinary criminal law enforcements.
So it's clear that there's a clash between the Court's
view of the limits of the president's authority under the
Pasi Comatatus Act and what the President thinks he can
do and has continually espoused he can do in terms
(05:54):
of federalizing the troops at a moment's notice.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
The judge cited us he span broadcast of Trump's August
twenty seventh Cabinet meeting where he discussed sending the National
Guard into Chicago and said, quote, I have the right
to do anything I want to do.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
So Judge Briar cited.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
That, and then he expanded his order beyond Los Angeles
to all of California.
Speaker 5 (06:21):
You're currently limited the order to California, but decided that
because California itself was a plaintiff, he was empowered to
extend the relief to grant protection to the plaintiff in
the case.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
Do you think that went too far?
Speaker 5 (06:36):
Well, My only concern about the Court's opinion is that
the Court seemed to be dismissing the present's sort of
inherent authority as a statutory matter. I think the Court
is on strong ground, both historically and in terms of
textually of understanding the limits of the passe comatatus Act.
I think the Court was a little bit quick in
(06:57):
terms of dismissing the presence sort of inherent authority under
the Commander and Chief clause of the Constitution. Clearly, presidents
have to make tough costs, tough calls in terms of
lias on street, tough cause in terms of potential invasions
and so forth, and so if the president is said,
we need to protect federal buildings, we need to protect
(07:21):
federal instrumentalities, I think that article to itself might give
the president arguably does give it the president that kind
of authority to order troops to protect those even if
states say they don't need it. So that's not at
stake here, and President Trump's news conference clearly illustrates that
that's not at stake here. But I think that might
(07:43):
be a weakness in the Court's opinion, because I do
think that the chief executive has to make those tough
calls if there are threats in the president's mind to
federal instrumentalities within the States.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
What Trump has said today is there are lots of
murderers in Chicago, and crime is up in Chicago, and
they're going in.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
But he didn't say when.
Speaker 5 (08:08):
But there's absolutely no justification for what the President say
he's going to do in Chicago, which is even more
indefensible than what he did in California. And I would
expect that the mayor of Chicago, Mayor Johnson, and the
governor of Illinois, Governor Pritsko, will immediately go to court
not only cite the most recent Judge Briar decision, but
(08:30):
cite just more convincingly that the President has acknowledged the
purpose for why he's sending in troops into Chicago, and
that's absolutely prohibited by the pussy com pat effect under
any construction of the terms of the statute.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
So Judge Briar's decision has no effect in Illinois correct,
But is the reasoning strong enough to apply to Illinois.
Speaker 5 (08:57):
I think that reasoning will over the same situation, and again,
Chicago is an easier case. And I think that to
the extent that the President would say that ICE agents
are under attack and that Key as Caman achieved, can't
ensure an orderly function of immigration processes in this country
(09:17):
without calling in supportive troops. That would be the strongest
sort of justification that I can understand in the California context,
for the use of either the federalized National Guard or
for the Marines. But he clearly in Chicago's basically is
that I don't even need that justification. I can send
troops wherever I want, whenever I want, because I'm the
(09:38):
President of the United States. And that downright is frightening.
Not only is it clearly outlawed by the pussy Coomatata
fact and by the history that led to the Act,
but it's a huge step towards autocracy.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
What if he just instead of sending in the National
Guard or military troops, if you just sent in lots
and lots of federal agbi dea ice, Is there any
a problem with that?
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Legally?
Speaker 5 (10:06):
There may be pockets of restrictions, but I think ordinarily
that would be within his power, and certainly he can
shift FBI agents over to EIST as temporary details. He
has the power to do that under prior statute. So
in that respect he could accomplish at least some of
his goals. But again, he could not engage those FBI
(10:27):
agents in terms of taking over for general law enforcement
for Chicago, because the FBI is not authorized. The EE
agents aren't authorized to deal with conventional robbery, theft, et cetera.
That are state crimes, not federal crimes.
Speaker 3 (10:42):
So the Insurrection Act is an exception to the posse
comma tatis law.
Speaker 5 (10:47):
That's correct. And so if he would deem that we
are under insurrection, I don't even know what the theory
would be in Chicago. But if he says that there
is an insurrection because undocumented worker are rising up in
arms against the authority, or he would say that some
other kind of indirection is taking place, then he could
(11:08):
justifiably use federal troops. He has not made that claim,
and indeed one is very far fetched given the facts
as we know them.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Now, and particularly in light of the fact that he
did not declare an insurrection on January sixth of twenty
twenty one. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show,
I'll continue this conversation with Professor Harold Krant of the
Chicago Kent College of Law. So what can Illinois governor
and Chicago's mayor do? I'm June Gross. When you're listening
(11:41):
to Bloomberg. President Donald Trump said today that he'll direct
federal law enforcement intervention to combat crime in Chicago, despite
staunch opposition from Chicago's mayor and Illinois governor.
Speaker 5 (11:55):
Well, we're going in.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
I didn't say when we're going in.
Speaker 4 (11:58):
We know before anything has happened here that the Trump
plan is to use any excuse to deploy armed military
personnel to Chicago. If someone flings a sandwich at an
Ice agent, Trump will try and go on TV and
declare an emergency in Chicago.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
I've been talking to Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago
Kent College of Law. So how before the break, we
were talking about Judge Briar's decision that the Trump administration
willfully broke federal law when they sent National Guard troops
to Los Angeles, and we were talking about the Insurrection
Act and that that's an exception to the Posse Comitatis
(12:37):
Act that Judge Briar said the president could have invoked.
Judge said, if the president wants to avoid the act's restrictions,
he must invoke a valid exception like the Insurrection Act,
along with its requisite showing that state and local law
enforcement are unable or unwilling to act.
Speaker 5 (12:54):
But when we had riots in the wake of the
sesssination of Martin Luther King, whom he had the unrest
because of the George Floyd murder, arguably local law enforcement
could not take the helm and preserve law and order.
And that is an exception of the Putico Tatus Act.
And indeed, the courts would be in difficult position if
(13:18):
the president made a careful finding that that is why
he is sending troops, that there is no local law
enforcement that can take care of law enforcement activities. He's
never made that finding, and given the fact that the
clim has gone down into these like Washington, d C
in Chicago, it's simply far fetched, which is understandably why
(13:38):
he doesn't want to make that kind of specific finding. So, yes,
presidents have sent in troops, and President Trump could in
the future respecting Congress, but not in these situations. Obviously,
the Constitution ascribes a principal role to Congress and deciding
when to introduce the military into civil in situations. Congress
(14:01):
has done so in the Passacacomma Titus Act as well
as the limitations in the Insurrection Act. And that's the
role that the Constitution gives to Congress, and pusident Trump
is just writing luckshot over the constitutional structure.
Speaker 3 (14:14):
The mayor of Chicago and the governor and other officials
held this press conference, and is there anything that the
governor or the mayor can do to stop him from
federalizing the National Guard? I mean, the National Guard is
supposedly under the governor's control, right, absolutely.
Speaker 5 (14:34):
But there are circumstances where the president can federalize the
National Guard. And at this point they may preemptibly go
to court. I'm sure they're discussing it both in terms
of filing lawsuit before the President sends troops or they'll
wait them out and at the first sign of when
the President does introduce troops into the streets of Chicago,
then they'll run into the federal.
Speaker 6 (14:55):
Court and hope for the best. I think they will.
Speaker 5 (14:58):
Receive a favorable reception in the Seventh Circuit in this area.
But time will tell.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
Suppose they started using the National Guard for other things
in Chicago or in Illinois, cleaning up the streets of
every town or something like that. Suppose they just use
the National Guard themselves.
Speaker 5 (15:15):
Yeah, I mean, the governor can do that, and the
governors in the past, have you used the National Guard
to help enhance the safety of their communities, But absent
the governor's directions, that president lacks the authority to do
so except for these delineated exceptions that Congress has carefully
fought through, And it would be up to the courts
then to respect that dividing line between Congress and the
President at least. Otherwise we're going to have not a
(15:38):
separation of powers of three equal branches, but everything will
be totally dominated by one branch.
Speaker 6 (15:43):
And that's something that the Framers were very cognizant.
Speaker 5 (15:46):
About, the fear of having one branch exceed too much
power to its own, and that's what we're confronting in
the near future.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
Tell us what the Ninth Circuit ruled before.
Speaker 5 (15:58):
It's said that it really difficult for courts of second
guests a justification by the President that there was simply
not sufficient local law enforcement to protect federal undertakings. In
this case, the federal undertakers, of course, were the Ice
agents attempting to round up undocumented individuals and sending them
(16:20):
out of the country. And so the court decided two.
Speaker 6 (16:23):
To one to not weigh in and say that they
have a hearing on whether.
Speaker 5 (16:28):
Or not the president's justification was pretext or not. And
so again the District Court here, Judge Bryer cleverly said,
even if that's true, that the president has violated the
comatatis Statute because it has not limited the use of
the troops for those permissible functions. So they didn't want
to get into pretext or non pretext, but rather just
(16:50):
said that what in fact the troops did in Los
Angeles exceeded their permissible bounds under the statute.
Speaker 3 (16:59):
So, I mean, if the Seventh Circuit follows the Ninth Circuit,
then they wouldn't stop the troops from coming in.
Speaker 5 (17:05):
I don't think that's going to happen. I mean, I
think that it obviously depends on what district court judge
gets the case. Once it's filed, assumably by Governor Pritzker,
But I think that the logical outcome here is different
because of the fact that there's no fig leaf. The
President has not even come close to complying with the
(17:26):
Postacoma Thomas Act. He's just said local law enforcement time
and a time at news conferences and not even suggesting
that there's an insurrection or a failure of the state
and local government to comply with judicial commands. So I
think the role is quite clear here in a lawsuit
is simply issue an injunction to say here outside your
(17:49):
lane and it would be up then into the Seventh
Circuit if there is an a junction to determine whether
to grant it or not, and I think they would
uphold it.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
And Judge Bryer said something that really resonates in light
of the fact that President Trump has talked about Chicago
and next Baltimore and New York. He said, it raises
concerns that they're creating a national police force with the
president as its chief. And that's what it seems to
(18:18):
be because it's about crime, which is usually a local issue.
Speaker 5 (18:21):
Yeah, it's one thing for the president as quasi governor
for DC to decide what's needed to maintain law and
order on DC streets. Obviously that's very controversial in his
own but it's another thing for him to do that
in states where there are governors trying to displace ubernatorial authority.
And of course, if you step back and look at this,
you know the President has said he's doing this in Chicago,
(18:44):
maybe New York, maybe Baltimore, But you don't hear about
New Orleans, Memphis, Saint Louis, places with higher crime rates
that are in Republican states. So again, to think about
what the president's accomplishing here, he's trying to flexis muscles
in a way which creates an incredibly dangerous precedent for
the entire country.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
Well, let's hope it doesn't happen. If it does, there's
certainly going to be a lot of litigation about it.
Thanks so much, Hal. That's Professor Harold Krent of the
Chicago Kent College of Law, coming up next on the
Bloomberg Law Show. A federal appeals court has ruled that
President Trump had no legal right to impose sweeping tariffs
(19:25):
on almost every country. But the next stop is the
Supreme Court. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
A federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump
had no legal right to impose sweeping tariffs on almost
every country. In a seven to four ruling, the US
(19:47):
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that Trump
overstepped his authority under an emergency powers law. It's a
major legal blow, but it largely upheld a made decision
by a special federal Trade court in New York.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
But it's a liberal court and it's going up to
the Supreme Court, who I think have been incredible people.
I think they've made very wise decisions. But the tariff question,
because without the tariffs' countries in serious, serious trouble. We've
taken in. Almost seventeen trillion dollars of investment is coming in.
(20:25):
Most of it is come in because of tariffs.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
The appeals court didn't strike down the tariffs immediately, allowing
the administration until mid October to appeal to the Supreme Court,
although Trump says they'll do so immediately. My guest is
Jimmy Garul, a professor at Notre Dame Law School and
the former Undersecretary for Enforcement at the Department of the Treasury.
(20:47):
Jimmy will you explain why the Federal Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled against Trump's tariffs.
Speaker 7 (20:53):
Well, first let me meet us back up. So on Friday,
as you state of, the US Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court decision by the
Court of International Trade. That decision was issued back in May,
and in that decision, the Court of International Trade set
aside five executive orders issued by President Trump that imposed
(21:13):
tariffs of unlimited duration on nearly all goods from merely
every country across the globe. So that decision was affirmed,
and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
held that AIPA the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, that
the authority under that statute to authorize the President to
(21:35):
regulate and this is an important term in the statute,
regulate imports. Does not authorize President Trump to impose tariffs
under either the reciprocal tariffs or the drug trafficking tariffs.
And so largely it was a statutory construction issue before
the court. And again the specific issue focused on this
(21:57):
term regulate and specifically that AIPA authorized as a president
to regulate imports and whether or not that authority includes
the authority to impose tariffs, and the Federal Court said, no,
it does not.
Speaker 3 (22:11):
So they didn't get into, you know, his claims about
the tariffs that they were to try to settle the
trade imbalance and the importation of fentenol.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Do they reach that at all?
Speaker 7 (22:24):
No, there really wasn't. It focused again on this particular language,
you know, the term regulate and what's the scope of
the meaning.
Speaker 5 (22:30):
Of that term.
Speaker 7 (22:31):
The court went on, you know, focusing on statutory construction
and look to other statutes that Congress had enacted that
authorized the president to impost tariffs and said, well, look,
with those federal statutes, Congress had imposed requirements on when
the president could impose tariffs and imposed limitations and said, well,
(22:56):
that's not the case here. You know that there were
very very few, you know, limitations on the president's authority
to impost tariffs under iepis has been leveraged by by
President Trump. They talked about legislative intent, that there was
no legislative intent and the statute to authorize the President
to impose triiffs. They highlighted the fact that the word
(23:19):
tariffs does not appear anywhere in the statute and therefore,
from a statutory construction perspective, the Court said, you know, no,
IPA doesn't provide the president of that authority. Now, having
said that, there were a couple of additional interesting arguments
that the Federal Court race. You know, one, they talked
(23:39):
about something called the major questions doctrine, and they said
that under the major questions doctrine, the Supreme Court has
held that if there is an asserted delegation of authority,
or if the president the executive branch is claiming that
Congress has transferred certain authority to the executive branch, if
(24:00):
based upon the history in the breast of that authority
that it would have vast economic and political significance, and
that's the term, you know, economic and political significance, then
there must be clear congressional authorization for the asserted power.
And here they claimed that there was no such clear
(24:22):
congressional authorization from Congress to the president to impose tariffs.
And then lastly, I think that the next major argument
that the Court raised and reaching its conclusion is they
argue that the government's argument that the president had this
authority was delegated to the executive branch by Congress violated
(24:44):
the non delegation doctrine, that this was an unconstitutional delegation
of power because Congress did not provide a sufficiently intelligible
principle that set forth the purpose of why Congress delegated
this power to impose tariffs to the president. And then
(25:05):
what were the boundaries, what were the legal boundaries on
this delegation of authority. So it was these combination of arguments,
again focusing primarily on the language of the statute that
the courts relied on in this conclusion striking down the tariffs.
Speaker 3 (25:24):
So what about the descent, the four judges and the descent,
why didn't they agree?
Speaker 7 (25:29):
Yeah, that's an excellent question, And so it was almost
kind of a tet for tet arguments, so that the
Center's arguing, well, you know, we think that the term
regulate is sufficient, that it does include the authority to
impose tariffs. And then with respect to the argument regarding
the major question doctrine and the non delegation doctrine, the
(25:51):
Descent raised a really interesting argument, and they said, well, yeah,
but this involves issues implicating national security and foreign policy,
and we think that the major questioned doctrine doesn't apply
in the context of the exercise of power by the
president to protect national security, defend national security, or in
(26:12):
the field of foreign affairs, and if it does, it
should be liberally applied, not in a narrow way, but
to afford the president to exercise terrorf authority, and the
same thing with a non delegation doctrine. That again, the
court should be very deferential to the president in the
field of national security and foreign policy. And that could
(26:32):
very well be an argument that the Supreme Court finds
persuasive in striking down the Federal Court decision and affirming
the tariffs.
Speaker 3 (26:43):
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled in the president's favor,
expanding and expanding and expanding presidential power.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
Do you think they're likely to do the same here.
Speaker 7 (26:54):
Well, the US Supreme Court is ruled in favor of
President Trump and against lower federal court decisions, and at
least sixteen rulings since April of twenty twenty five, and
you know, they've lifted injunctions that have been imposed on
actions taken by the president, again in favor of the
Trump administration. This is the so called you know, shadow docket.
(27:18):
And so the Supreme Court, based upon these decisions, they
seem to be very deferential to the president's exercise of
executive authority, and they seem to be comfortable and fine
with an expansion of the president's executive authority based upon
these previous rulings. And so I think if this pattern continues,
(27:42):
if we see this pattern continue, then then I think
it would likely result in a decision that's favorable to
President Trump and affirming his authority to impose Tariff's under AVA.
Speaker 3 (27:53):
I keep waiting to see what move by Trump will
be outrageous enough or extend his authority enough that the
Court is going to finally say, Okay, stop there.
Speaker 7 (28:05):
Yeah, it's hard to identify that benchmark, you know, when
that red line would be crossed, especially considering the fact
that the Supreme Court not that long ago, relatively recently
a role that the president is virtually immune for prosecution.
But any action taken by the President pursuing who is
(28:28):
Article two authorities, you know, he's immune and he can't
be criminally prosecuted, which I'm sure has only in bold
in the president in terms of really stretching the bounds,
you know, pressing the boundaries, you know, the extreme boundaries
of his authority.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
There are other laws that he could use.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
Scott Besant was talking about section three three eight to
the smooth Holly Terar Effect of nineteen thirty. Then I've
heard about the Trade Act of nineteen seventy four, So
I mean, what could he use if he wants to
stay away from a well.
Speaker 7 (29:01):
That's a secretary Vessent has recently commented on the Federal
Circuit Court decision and basically making two two points, you know. One,
he says that he is extremely confident that the Supreme
Court is going to uphold the Trump tariffs, and that
even if the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration
(29:23):
or limits its authority under AEPA, that there are several
other statutes enacted by Congress that the president could use
to continue the tariffs. Now, those statutes are not as
broad in scope as IEPA. Therefore, there would be certain
there would be additional prerequisites, you know, conditions and limitations
(29:48):
placed on the president with respect to imposing tariffs under
those statutes. But there certainly are other statutes that the
Trump administration could leverage to continue the tariffs.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
So they picked this because it was fast and easy.
Speaker 7 (30:05):
Yeah, yeah, largely largely so because again the requirements are
not as demanding as they are in some of these
other statutes, and the kind of limitations that are imposed
on those statutes aren't present with the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act. So I eba cleaner, quicker, easier. Let's take
(30:25):
the path of least resistance, which is ABA, instead of
going through these other statutes that are more complicated.
Speaker 3 (30:31):
So the tariffs still on steel, aluminum, and automobiles are
unaffected by this decision.
Speaker 7 (30:37):
Yes, that's correct, and the reason being is that those
tariffs were enacted under a different statute. They weren't authorized
under AEPA.
Speaker 1 (30:47):
I mean, so, how much of a setback is this
for Trump?
Speaker 7 (30:50):
Well, we'll see. I do think even if let's assume
that the Supreme Court affirms the Federal Circuit Court decision
striking down tariffs and RIPA, so then the administration has
to pursue Plan B. I do think that those other statutes, again,
they weren't narrow and focused, and they impose greater restrictions
(31:14):
and limitations. So that is going to I think cumulatively
limit the scope of the tariffs that are currently in place.
But at the end of the day, what does that mean?
You know, the president doesn't get one hundred percent of
the tariffs that he's imposed. He only gets eighty percent
or seventy five percent. We'll see, and I think that
(31:35):
that many of the tariffs will continue, but just based
on different authority. But I think that maybe the more
fundamental issue here is the uncertainty this decision by the
Federal Circuit is creating for investors in the economy. And
then what are the implications? So if the if the
AEPA tariffs are struck down, what are the implications of that?
(31:59):
So does that I mean, the tariffs that have been
paid under these executive orders have to be repaid, the
businesses that pay those tariffs have to be compensated. So
there's a lot of complicated What are the implications of
this with respect to ongoing negotiations with other countries the
(32:20):
United States and other countries involving the current tariffs. So
if the tariffs are struck down on RAIPA, is that
going to disrupt those negotiations or those negotiations going to
going to terminate? What's the effect going to be? And
so the ripple effects of the Supreme Court's decision, whichever
(32:41):
way it rules, is going to have I think a
substantial significant impact on the global economy.
Speaker 1 (32:48):
Thanks so much for joining me.
Speaker 5 (32:49):
Jimmy.
Speaker 3 (32:50):
That's Professor Jimmy Garoul of Notre Dame Law School. And
that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
our Bloomberg Law PODCAS. You can find them on Apple Podcasts,
Spotify and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast
Slash Law, And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law
(33:10):
Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm
June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.