<a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2025/07/15/defending-the-court-of-international-trade-ruling-against-trumps-tariffs-a-reply-to-estreicher-and-babbitt/" target="_blank">View original image source</a>.
Legal fireworks are flying as experts weigh in on the Court of International Trade’s recent ruling against Trump’s tariffs. Professor Samuel Estreicher and attorney Andrew Babbitt are making waves, criticizing the decision and sparking a heated debate about the president’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Let’s be real—if only the same amount of energy went into fixing potholes as it does into bickering about tariffs!
What’s really juicy about this decision is that it shines a light on what many are calling the president’s unconstitutional overreach. The court ruled that IEEPA doesn’t even authorize tariffs. Suddenly, the words “regulate” and “tax” are throwing legal experts into a conniption. Who would’ve thought a conversation about tariffs could turn into a constitutional crisis? Maybe next time, the president will think twice before reaching for the tariff hammer!
As the case gears up for appeal, this battle is bound to reveal more secrets hiding behind the legal curtain. Will the courts put the brakes on this administration’s tariff aggression? Or is it just another day in the swamp? While we wait for answers, we’re left wondering—what’s next? Should we all stock up on popcorn, or maybe just our favorite snacks for the inevitable legal drama ahead?
Feel free to chime in on whether you think the courts will actually reign in executive power over tariffs, or if it’s just the soundtrack to another season of “As the Tariffs Turn.” It’s a wild ride, and there’s sure to be more twists and turns ahead!
About the Author
To get daily local headlines delivered to your inbox each morning, sign up for newsletter!
