Does the Smoot-Hawley Act Justify the Trump Tariffs? Probably Yes, Says Jed Rubenfeld
Probably yes, says Jed Rubenfeld; no, says Philip Zelikow.
Probably yes, says Jed Rubenfeld; no, says Philip Zelikow.
Links to my writings about our case against Trump's "Liberation Day" Tariffs and related issues.
Plus: Drilling in the Alaskan wilderness, Harvard tries "wastefulness" argument, Stephen Miller tells on himself, and more...
Trump's trade war has created a carve-out bonanza for industries with political connections and big lobbying budgets.
The MAGA loyalty that Trump demands is anathema to everything that originalism is supposed to be about.
The real case for free trade is not "my enemies hate it" or "it's cheaper for me, personally" but "it makes the world richer, freer, and more peaceful."
Out-of-control housing costs helped Trump win the 2024 election. Is he about to make the problem worse?
The podcasts cover the case and its relationship to the more general problem of abuse of emergency powers.
Both are wins for free trade, but only one vindicates the separation of powers.
For both practical and constitutional reasons, this is the obvious way out of the chaos Trump's tariffs have created.
It explains how the ruling is a win for separation of powers and the rule of law.
The Wall Street Journal, CBC, and Time published good articles on the story behind the case filed by the Liberty Justice Center and myself.
Plus: Javier Milei puts state-run TV to good use, Texas' THC antagonism, rent control lunacy, and more...
Some of the more informative interviews I have done about our win in the case against Trump's tariffs, in lawsuit filed by the Liberty Justice Center and myself.
The decision by Judge Rudolph Contreras of the US District Court for the District Columbia holds IEEPA doesn't authorize the president to impose tariffs at all.
This is a standard order imposing a brief stay of the trial court ruling, while the parties litigate the issue of whether a longer stay should be imposed.
No. One of the judges in Wednesday's unanimous ruling was a Trump appointee, and the ruling rested on important legal and constitutional principles.
The Court of International Trade just issued a decision striking down Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs and other IEEPA tariffs.
The Court of International Trade ruled that Trump's emergency economic powers do not include the authority to impose tariffs on nearly all imports.
I spoke along with my Cato colleague Walter Olson.
The debate over free trade should include more than the costs of Trump's tariffs versus the value of cheaper stuff.
While there is no constitutional right to receive grants, the Constitution does bar grant conditions that undermine constitutional rights.
Like that in the similar case filed by Liberty Justice Center and myself, this one indicated judicial skepticism of Trump's claims to virtually unlimited power to impose tariffs.
Whether due to tariffs or because they are made in America, the result would be much higher prices.
The more important the product—and food certainly ranks high on any list—the better it is to allow markets to work.
I was interviewed by Brittany Lewis of Forbes.
I will be speaking, along with Cato Institute scholar Walter Olson.
Subaru says it has "adjusted its pricing in response to current market conditions," but we all know what that means.
Plus: Tim Dillon takes on the establishment, Chicago's racist hiring strategies, train fetishes, and more...
On the bright side, at least Trump finally admitted his tariffs are, indeed, paid by Americans.
Seasonally adjusted job openings and capital outlay spending are declining to levels not seen since the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Scenes from a trade war.
Greg Sargent of the New Republic interviewed me.
The White House calls it "the art of the deal," but a 30 percent tariff on imports from China is economically damaging and constitutionally dubious.
"If this is the end of my American dream," says one small business owner, "I'm going to go down swinging."
Outcomes are hard to predict. But the judges seemed skeptical of the government's claim that Trump has virtually unlimited authority to impose tariffs.
Plus: Homeless encampments in California, taxing university endowments, and more...
“Between the cost of labor and the inputs that goes in, it’s more cost-effective for farmers” to plow over ripe tomatoes, said one expert.
Residents of the United Kingdom will get lower tariffs, while Americans are stuck paying higher ones.
The right number of dolls? As many as your kid wants.
The results were completely foreseeable, after the president imposed 25 percent tariffs on all imported automobiles and parts.
America is not a department store. And no successful department store would be following Trump's antitrade strategy.
Trump’s tariffs aren’t just bad economics—they’re a rejection of abundance, prosperity, and capitalism itself.
Tariffs on creative media are barriers not just to goods, but also to ideas.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks