The Court of International Trade’s Restrained, Conservative Decision Against Trump’s Tariffs

There are biased left-wing judges who rule against Republicans improperly. But the U.S. Court of International Trade, in striking down Trump’s tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, was not engaging in such behavior. In fact, the decision was remarkably evenhanded and sober.

That’s the argument I make in a piece for Fusion. Here are some of the key points:

• The unanimous decision came from a panel of three judges, two of whom were appointed by Republicans, including one by Trump himself.
• The Trump-appointed judge was recommended by Robert Lighthizer, Trump’s protectionist trade representative from his first term.
• The attorneys for the administration requested that cases originally brought in district courts be moved to the Court of International Trade, suggesting that they did not think the court was biased against them.
• The decision only mentions Trump by name twice, neither time disparagingly. It contains no flowery language about defending democracy or about the darkness of authoritarianism.
• The judges cite The Federalist Papers and Supreme Court cases with majority opinions written by current conservative justices, such as West Virginia v. EPA, Biden v. Nebraska, and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
• The court did not strike down tariffs levied under Section 232 or Section 301, which were outside the scope of this case.
• The court did not overturn precedent. It relied on precedent to come to its conclusion.
• The court did not rely on economic analysis or its assessment of foreign policy. It stuck to the language in the statute and in the Constitution.
• “The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President’s use of tariffs as leverage,” the decision said. “That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [IEEPA] does not allow it.”

The Court of International Trade was interpreting the law, not imposing its personal policy preferences. That’s exactly what conservatives have always said courts should do.

You can read the full piece here.