“I don’t imagine many other countries are going to undo their punishment in the meantime.”
oh, I agree with that. Trump did real damage to the relationships the US has with its trading partners.
Why would they think everything is hunky dory now, I sure wouldn’t if I was them. And, there are still 44 months of opportunity to set forth on many more ill conceived concepts of a plan.
Now, if only Congress could grow a spine and start doing its job… oops, now I’m getting greedy,lol.
Who says the tariffs come off upon appeal?
Who says Trump ignores the court?
Impeachment case number one in 2027.
Market is realizing what I posted here. Trump still has the power to slap tariff. In fact, after getting called “TACO” and the court ruling, expect Trump to escalate just to prove he is still the boss…
I will sell the rally, of course tactically.
If he makes an even bigger threat tomorrow, to look “strong”, then walks it back over the weekend, again, it only cements the meme. He will need to declare something a “win”.
Steve
You are thinking like yourself, and not molding your thinking based on his past actions.
As expected, the regime has asked the court to delay effect of it’s ruling, contending it takes away TIG’s leverage in trade negotiations. The Dow 30 is now down 175.
TIG is also asking SCOTUS to hear the case quickly.
Steve
Steve is talking about future events. Not legal events but character actions in the legal and economic arena. Steve is painfully correct.
Yeap. I don’t know why anyone would celebrate courts decision, all it does is prolong the uncertainty. If you are someone trades volatility, and willing to take risk, this is a rich environment for you.
And now the Dow 30 is up 31 points.
Steve…watching the lemmings stampede back and forth.
I think you mean Bots trading on fraction of a cent.
A federal appeals court allowed President Trump’s sweeping tariffs to temporarily stay in effect, a day after the US Court of International Trade blocked their implementation after deeming the method used to enact them “unlawful.”
DB2
What I’m waiting for is, as TIG says the case is being pushed to SCOTUS, in record time, someone says “will you abide by the decision of the Supreme Court?” Any bets he will give a 2020 answer, along the lines of “I’ll have to take a look at it”, as if compliance with SCOTUS rulings is optional?
Steve
Hold on I thought the Big Beautiful bill had a provision in it that would stop these activist Federal appeals courts from doing just that. But now Trump is an activist using them? 
No. The BBB had a provision that dealt with a preliminary injunction, which is different from a stay pending appeal.
iirc, the “BBB” doesn’t prevent courts making rulings, but it defunds the court’s ability to enforce their rulings.
A provision “hidden” in the sweeping budget bill that passed the U.S. House on Thursday seeks to limit the ability of courts—including the U.S. Supreme Court—from enforcing their orders.
Steve
Ahhh so it just ties the right arm but not the left arm? That is good to know.
Yep. Although it’s worth keeping in mind that the change in the BBB doesn’t eliminate the ability to get preliminary injunctions - it just requires that there be a bond or other security for them to be enforceable.
There’s actually a legitimate difference between a temporary injunction (which is typically issued at the beginning of a lawsuit) and a stay pending appeal (which is always after the litigation is over). The former has to be decided by the judge while many of the facts, and sometimes many of the legal arguments, have yet to be fully fleshed out. There’s more uncertainty about even whether the temporary relief is appropriate. By the time you get to a stay pending appeal, though, everything’s been decided and the facts are set - so there’s a firmer record for the appeal court to decide whether a stay is appropriate.
That said, the BBB provision is so poorly drafted that it’s an utter nullity (even if it survives the Senate) so I wouldn’t worry about it too much. I don’t even litigate, and I immediately noticed that while it changes the law so that injunctions aren’t enforceable if “no security was given,” it doesn’t have any minimum standard for what that security has to be. So look for all of these injunctions to now require the Plaintiff to put up a barleycorn (the traditional item for a legally sufficient but de minimis consideration in contracts), or $10.00, or some other token amount to just facially satisfy the requirement.
Agreed that it’s poorly written - “No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued …”
It doesn’t clearly say that it’s only for preliminary injunctions. One could read it that it applies to permanent injunctions as well.
That’s a partial quote of the provision. The full provision reads:
No court of the United States may enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.”
FRCP § 65(c) is the preliminary injunction/restraining order section.
Fair enough, thanks for clarifying.