Yoo's criticisms are off the mark, for a variety of reasons. But, tellingly, he actually agrees Trump's IEEPA tariffs are illegal, merely disagreeing with the court's reasons for reaching that conclusion.
The CIT ruling is much stronger than Prof. Goldsmith contends. The same is true of a related ruling by federal District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras.
Most imports to the U.S. are raw materials, intermediate parts, or equipment—the stuff that manufacturing firms need to make things.
Next week could be a pivotal one, as a federal appeals court could decide whether to restore an injunction against Trump's tariffs.
This crucial procedural issue is now before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Its resolution will determine whether the tariffs are immediately suspended, or get to continue so long as the case is stil being litigated.
In a 1978 appearance at Utah State University, the Nobel Prize–winning economist provided the perfect retort to those who blindly argue we should "build in America."
A new comprehensive review finds the negative effects of trade with China have been significantly exaggerated.
The poll finds 55% approve and only 30% disapprove of the recent ruling against his IEEPA tariffs.
Media coverage of our tariff case has mostly been fair and accurate. But there are a few examples of unfortunate misconceptions, mainly having to do with libertarianism and its relationship to conservatism.
A leading conservative legal scholar explains why striking down Trump's IEEPA tariffs is vital to protecting the separation of powers.
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.
Plus: A listener asks if the "big beautiful bill" will decrease the deficit.
Vance says "you've gotta let these people make decisions on their own." He should try that approach more generally.
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."
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.
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.
"New opportunities for innovation, economic growth, and global engagement," says one expert.
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.
The federal government will reportedly get a "golden share" in U.S. Steel, potentially allowing it to overrule shareholders on some decisions.
The debate over free trade should include more than the costs of Trump's tariffs versus the value of cheaper stuff.
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.
Middlebury professor Gary Winslett argues the South—not China—poached the Rust Belt’s manufacturing base by out-competing it on policy.
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.
The article explains why these claims to emergency powers are illegal and dangerous, and how to stop them.
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...
The site of George Washington's famed winter encampment might not have existed without colonial-era iron regulations.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
