foregoneconclusion

The key point, which is made in this article, is that the 1st Trump administration withdrew from NAFTA/TPP trade agreements and did new deals which were publicly promoted by Donald Trump as being significantly better than what they replaced. So it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense that Trump's 2nd administration is claiming trade with China, Mexico and Canada constitutes an "emergency". On top of that, use of the IEEPA to levy tariffs is blatantly unconstitutional going by the standard that the Supreme Court already set with the Biden administration's attempt at using the HEROES Act to forgive student loan debt. 

Jim_MAY said:

The Trump Administration will advance an appeal to the Supreme Court. Congress gave tariff powers to the Presidents long ago.

The Trump administration declared an emergency under the IEEPA statute to levy tariffs. But the IEEPA statute doesn't mention tariffs or taxes as a power that was granted under the IEEPA by Congress. In fact, the IEEPA has never been used by the executive to levy tariffs. It's only been used to apply sanctions to foreign countries. Per the Supreme Court, any statute used by the executive branch that has significant economic/political impact MUST contain specific language that supports the way the executive is using it. The SC has called this the Major Questions Doctrine. Since the IEEPA doesn't contain any language that specifies tariffs as a power granted by Congress, the Trump administration's use of the statute fails the Major Questions Doctrine and is unconstitutional as a result.

An example of this would be the Biden administration's first attempt at forgiving student loan debt under the HEROES Act. A lawsuit was filed that challenged the use of the statute for that purpose. The SC ultimately ruled that the HEROES Act didn't contain language specific enough to support the actions being taken by the executive and ruled the use to be unconstitutional. So if student loan forgiveness is considered a big enough economic/political issue for the SC to apply the Major Questions Doctrine, then the tariff actions by the Trump administration will obviously qualify as well. 

More proof that the President levying tariffs under the IEEPA is illegal. Not only is there no mention of tariffs or taxes in the language of the IEEPA, but there is also no mention of targeting domestic companies. The IEEPA was intended to be used for sanctioning foreign governments only. 

Video game consoles: 30% commission on sales in 1st party digital store + no 3rd party digital stores + 30% commission on discs sold in 3rd party retail. That business model has never been ruled to have supracompetitive rates by a U.S. court and it predates the iPhone and App Store. Epic has tried to argue that model is "okay" because console makers don't make as much profit on hardware as Apple. But that argument is not legally based. There is no law that states specific levels of profit allowed for a company that sells a closed system. 

The dirty little secret of AI: the LLM program isn’t nearly as important as the database that the LLM is “trained” on. That’s the reason that the Trump administration fired the head librarian for the Library of Congress. That position also has control over the U.S. Copyright Office.