Public sentiment towards Trump's tariffs is predominantly negative, marked by frustration over economic repercussions and perceived ego-driven decision-making. Critics argue the tariffs increase costs for American consumers and strain international relations, particularly with India. Supporters express loyalty to Trump but recognize the economic damage and call for accountability. Overall, the discourse reflects a polarized public opinion with strong emotions on both sides.

Donald Trump

U.S. Government

International Trade Partners

All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. **FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.**

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/law) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Now we're going to see just how fast John "Stare Decisis is for Suckers" Roberts and his conservative cronies change their mind on congressional power delegation and suddenly think it's a great thing.

Big_Wave9732

Compliance_Crip

Gee I wonder how the supreme court will rule given that I gotta they're non partisan according to the diddler in chief

breezey_kneeze

Ironically, two of the judges who dissented were appointed by Obama. Trump isn’t denouncing those judges for being woke liberals 🤔, but that’s none of my business.

Amonamission

MostlyRandomMusings

They’ll calvinball it for him for whatever reason they’ve done it every single other time.

RobotJQ

I think we’ll lean that “if congress wants to overrule the president, they are free to.”

fox-mcleod

/u/CobblePots95 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1kyiivm/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_courts_were_right_to/), in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

DeltaBot

I think this view really comes down to how you view the Major Questions Doctrine and Non-Delegation Doctrine.

If you want to be consistent and not hypocritical with political motivation, you need to consider how you felt about West Virginia vs EPA where the major questions doctrine upended the EPA's ability to regulate an industry. 

If you felt the WV vs EPA was correctly decided, then logically most of the Trump Tariffs fit the same case. Too broad a use of a congressional delegation. If you felt the WV vs EPA case was incorrectly decided, then it makes sense to see the Tariff decision as wrong too.

We could also consider Biden vs Nebraska and the student loan question. 

If you think Biden's attempt to find new powers in a law to be wrong and the case was correctly decided, then it follows Trump's attempt to the same is also wrong. But - if you find the Bidens attempt to use that law was reasonable - then so is Trumps.

I point this out because it is quite interesting to see the hypocritical nature of people for specific political ends.

I personally favor the MQD and limitations of finding new powers in older laws so I think the court is right here with the tariffs. However, many Democrats and people here on reddit lambasted both of those decisions. They argued about how wrong they were. It would be incredibly hypocritical for them to not think Trump had the same powers and supported the idea the executive had those powers. After all, its the same concept of the executive using delegated powers in broad ways.

Full-Professional246

I think a big part of your view rests on how you believe laws should be interpreted.

You mention at least twice what IEEPA is "intended," to do.

Here's the problem with using that as an interpretive method: when Congress votes a particular bill into law, there are at least 218 representatives and 50 senators voting for it. Some may have voted 'aye,' because they share your view of "intent." Some, perhaps, voted 'aye,' because they had a different idea of what the bill would permit the President to do. A few might have voted 'aye,' because the party whip told them to, and maybe a few others voted 'aye,' because they engaged in vote swapping: ("I'll give you a yes vote on the IEEPA if I can count on your vote for my farm subsidy bill next month and a cloture vote on the education bill if we need it.")

So one school of though avers that rather than divining "intent," by legislative history, the analysis must begin and end with the plain text of the law.

50 U.S. Code § 1702 provides in relevant part that the President may, "At the times and to the extent specified in section 1701 of this title, the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise. . ." do a bunch of stuff.

And § 1701 says, "The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose. Any exercise of such authorities to deal with any new threat shall be based on a new declaration of national emergency which must be with respect to such threat."

So the question is: who gets to declare the existence of "an unusual and extraordinary threat ?"

It's typically the President.

EDITED TO ADD:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has (temporarily) [stayed the order ](https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1812.ORDER.5-29-2025_2522636.pdf)of the United States Court of International Trade:

&gt;The request for an immediate administrative stay is granted to the extent that the judgments and the permanent injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in these cases are temporarily stayed until further notice while this court considers the motions papers.

This is in no way a judgement on the merits.

Bricker1492

Except it's the president that decides foreign policy. The courts exist to resolve disputes, not to write laws or enact them.

Dr0ff3ll

&gt;Canada is not a source of fentanyl trafficking

Lol, someone is behind the times. AT LEAST as much fentanyl and precursor chemicals come from Canada as Mexico. Canadian border security is way below Mexican.

DickCheneysTaint

Apparently not… federal appeals court thought differently.

They just stayed the trade courts decision, so tarrifs are back on.

FartingKiwi

A "paper thin" veneer is used to justify many government actions regardless of party to such a great extent as to render your complain invalid. 

Also you talk about "intent" of a law but that is not how laws work. It might be how public opinions is swayed.  The 13th amendment was INTENDED to make sure that slaves and former slaves were granted citizenship, but listening to the popular media anyone making the intent argument to support the Trump administration position on birthright citizenship are told that intent does not matter.

throwawaydanc3rrr

I read through the court decision, and I counter that the logic the court used to overturn the Canada/Mexico Fentanyl tariffs was much stronger and likely to survive appeal, vs the logic used to overturn the Liberation day tariffs which was much weaker and is likely to be vacated. The Liberation day tariff argument directly contradicted a prior court precendent, based on a vague idea that intent as expressed in a *different* piece of legislation not at issue here suggests that Congress probably wouldn't like this action.

Curiously, the logic used on the Fentanyl tariffs can probably be extended to the Liberation day tariffs and would probably have good odds of success there, but the court declined to discuss that argument, instead stopping with the intent idea. I'm sure there's some legal tactical reason to do it that way, but I don't know what it is.

Kerostasis

[deleted]

[https://www.bearmanbrothers.com/post/trump-s-liberation-day-tariffs-just-got-body-slammed-by-the-courts](https://www.bearmanbrothers.com/post/trump-s-liberation-day-tariffs-just-got-body-slammed-by-the-courts)

IndependencePlus1066


As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. 

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

 For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
 
 We are actively looking for new moderators.  If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
 

***


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

A federal court ruled on Wednesday evening that the massive tariffs President Donald Trump imposed shortly after beginning his second term [are illegal](https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-66.pdf).  
  
The US Court of International Trade’s decision in two consolidated cases – known as *V.O.S. Selections v. United States* and *Oregon* *v. Department of Homeland Security* – is quite broad. It argues that the Constitution places fairly strict limits on Congress’s ability to empower the president to impose tariffs in the first place — limits that Trump surpassed — and it reads several federal trade laws to place rigid constraints on Trump’s ability to continue his trade war.

The decision may not be final; it can be appealed up to the Supreme Court. But if higher courts embrace the trade court’s reasoning, Trump most likely will not be able to reimpose the sweeping kind of tariffs at issue in the *V.O.S. Selections* case, although he might still be able to impose more modest tariffs that are more limited in scope and duration.

The three-judge panel that decided *V.O.S. Selections* unanimously agreed that the Trump’s tariffs, as they stand now, are illegal in an unsigned opinion. The panel included judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Trump himself.

Read more: [https://www.vox.com/donald-trump/414794/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-vos-selections-oregon](https://www.vox.com/donald-trump/414794/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-vos-selections-oregon)

Expect the house to now try to pass Trumps tariff agenda. although I think it will have a rough time getting through. Also curious how much of the budget bill that just passed the house was working on the assumption of having tariff money coming in.

sedatedlife

Jesus fuck a Regan appointed judge? Dude was appointed forty years ago. Why can’t we all agree to end this bullshit.

Edit:just looked it up and there are 10 Reagan judges left.

LuckyandBrownie

TACO Tariffs can kiss Cheetos ass goodbye

DemoEvolved

This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report **this comment** for “breaks r/politics rules -&gt; custom -&gt; "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls)

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

That's fine, the Senate will just write a clause into the tax bill allowing him to undertake any trade deal with impunity, so long as it's in the interest of national security.

theunbearablebowler

With all due respect, people seem bound and determined to ignore the fact that this man doesn't pay attention to the law and people let him get away with that.

So, telling him he can't declare tariffs isn't going to stop him from doing it to game the system to force dips that he can buy into.

WhatsRatingsPrecious

For ever action there is a reaction. It’s doubtful that Trump will put everything he is doing on a permanent basis.

stewartm0205

Trump fucking Americans with everything he does.

blkatcdomvet

[Oct 24 -](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/15/trump-tariffs-price-hikes-warnings)“**To me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is ‘tariffs**’, Trump said in an often-combative conversation with John Micklethwait, editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News, at the Economic Club of Chicago on Tuesday. “It’s my favorite word.”

“You see these empty, old, beautiful steel mills and factories that are empty and falling down,” Trump said. “We’re going to bring the companies back. We’re going to lower taxes for companies that are going to make their products in the USA. **And we’re going to protect those companies with strong tariffs.”**

“**The higher the tariff**, the more you’re going to put on the value of those goods, **the higher people are going to have to pay**,” Micklethwait told Trump.

“The higher the tariff, the more likely it is that the company will come into the United States and build a factory,” Trump said in response, to applause from the audience.

Thatisme01

In other words, billionaires are the only people who matter!

Let's build factories in the US with steel imported from Asia that is being tariffed 50%. Or is it 150%? 200?

ATL_MI_LA

Tariff winds blowing back at us again!Looking for the tornado next!

Subject-Big-7352

Annabanana2989

Actually, you’re the one who’s on the way out.

DrWizard7877

Tariffs are his new wall this go around. This too will remain incomplete just like his wall.

Aggravating-Beach-22

A federal appeals court ruling has determined that most of President Trump’s tariffs are illegal, creating uncertainty in U.S. trade policy. Trump is seeking to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court.

Trump Tariffs Legal Battle

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want