Freedom Four

A Friday Hodgepodge

We close the week with four recent victories in the never-ending fight for freedom.

1. In the best news I've heard in quite some time, Ilya Somin of the Liberty Justice Center reports a big win on behalf of five American businesses harmed by Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs:

The US Court of International Trade just issued a unanimous ruling in the case against Trump's "liberation day" tariffs filed by Liberty Justice Center and myself on behalf of five US businesses harmed by the tariffs. The ruling also covers the case filed by twelve states led by Oregon; they, too, have prevailed on all counts. All of Trump's tariffs adopted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) are invalidated as beyond the scope of executive power, and their implementation blocked by a permanent injunction. In addition to striking down the "Liberation Day" tariffs challenged in our case (what the opinion refers to as the "Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs"), the court also ruled against the fentanyl-related tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China (which were challenged in the Oregon case; the court calls them the "Trafficking Tariffs"). [bold added, links removed]

Somin notes further that the three-judge panel consisted of a Democrat and two Republicans, one of whom is a Trump appointee. The ruling applies to all importers, although it has been temporarily stayed pending further legal processes.

It is worth noting further that the Trump Administration has been trying to move other tariff cases to this court, regarding it as the most likely venue for success.

2. In addition to the above victory, twelve states prevailed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a related case. Somin comments:

I think Judge Contreras' analysis here is compelling, and other judges should follow it.

Judge Contreras' decision is in large part a jurisdictional ruling on whether cases challenging the IEEPA tariffs must be filed in CIT (he concludes they need not be, because IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs). I will not try to assess this jurisdictional issue here. I will only note I believe CIT does have jurisdiction over such cases (which is why we filed our case there), but I have no strong view on whether CIT's jurisdiction is exclusive, as the Trump Administration has argued. As Judge Contreras notes, two other district courts have ruled that it is indeed exclusive, and ordered the relevant cases to be transferred to CIT. [bold added]

The conclusion that the IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs at all is stronger than the equivocal position Somin attributes to the Court of International Trade in its decision, despite his arguments to that effect.

3. As part of his war on Harvard University, Donald Trump has attempted to violate its right to enroll international students. The Guardian reports that he has been blocked from doing so:

"International students and scholars are tremendous assets that contribute to US preeminence in innovation, research, and economic strength," said Fanta Aw, executive director and CEO of Nafsa, the Association of International Educators. "Undermining their ability to study here is self-defeating. With these actions, the United States will alienate the very minds that fuel its success."

This is all on top of the fact that Trump is violating the right of an American business to deal with paying customers. Whatever its many flaws, Trump is wrong to go after Harvard -- and implicitly threaten every other education institution -- in this way.

4. In a sign that at least some conservatives are waking up to the danger that Trump poses to our freedom and their own party, a prominent conservative magazine sings its praises of libertarian law firms:

The government, in many cases, won't knock it off unless it is challenged, even if its behavior is blatantly unconstitutional, as it was with these tariffs or with Biden's student loan plans or any number of other cases. If Congress won't stand up to the president and big business is too cozy with government to pick a fight, it's good to know that a handful of libertarian lawyers with a few obscure small-business clients can point to the Constitution and win. [bold added]

And elsewhere, on the same subject:

There are a whole bunch of shortsighted Americans who want the president to have pretty much unlimited power -- as long as the guy in the Oval Office is a guy they agree with, that is -- and who never bothers to think what this country would be like if a guy they didn't agree with had that same unlimited power they envision. If you hate the existing system of checks and balances in our Constitution, you might be an American in your citizenship, but you're not really much of an American in your thinking. [bold added]

Dum spiro spero.

-- CAV