SCOTUS Hearing 11/5/2025: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, Trump v. V.O.S. Selections

[HisArpy]

Definitely not an emergency. lol. One of many reasons the administration is unlikely to be happy with the court’s decision.

I'm having a difficult time with this rationale that the President can't declare an emergency without someone else's approval/review. Further, if Trump can't declare an emergency because the unrest is either insufficiently bad, or it doesn't exist at all; then how do States get away with declaring a "climate emergency"?

The whole talking point smacks of uncertainty and shaky foundations.

 

[icanhelp1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1986184260517306826

What branch of government has the authority to declare an emergency? Who has the authority to challenge it?

I followed the arguments and didn't hear many oral arguments about IEEPA itself. Most of what I heard is whether tariffs are taxes and that congress sets taxes. Hard to follow. The one statement I think I heard one justice ask was if the president can cancel tariffs (trade) why can't he impose them.

Kavanaugh; vvv

"Why would a rational congress say yeah, we're going to give the president the power to shut down trade-you're admitting that power's in there- but can't do a 1% tariff?"

In my opinion the judicial branch is grabbing executive authority.

 

[Rightguide]

Lol...until something is in writing, the President is lying.

This is 1174 at his emotional finest. He’s the kind of guy who cries during campaign ads and needs a safe space after a Trump news clip. Every time Trump opens his mouth, 74's cortisol levels unionize. His tear ducts are registered Democrats. He calls his therapist more than his mother, and every time an election doesn’t go his way, his hormones beg for asylum in Canada. He doesn’t just feel politics, he menstruates ideology.

 

[DeluxAuto]

I'm having a difficult time with this rationale

You should ask a lawyer to help you with the legalese, Derpy.

 

[DeluxAuto]

This is 1174 at his emotional finest. He’s the kind of guy who cries during campaign ads and needs a safe space after a Trump news clip. Every time Trump opens his mouth, 74's cortisol levels unionize. His tear ducts are registered Democrats. He calls his therapist more than his mother, and every time an election doesn’t go his way, his hormones beg for asylum in Canada. He doesn’t just feel politics, he menstruates ideology.

He's never put as much emotion into a post on anything as you did here about him, histrionic muppet.

 

[ll74]

This is 1174 at his emotional finest. He’s the kind of guy who cries during campaign ads and needs a safe space after a Trump news clip. Every time Trump opens his mouth, 74's cortisol levels unionize. His tear ducts are registered Democrats. He calls his therapist more than his mother, and every time an election doesn’t go his way, his hormones beg for asylum in Canada. He doesn’t just feel politics, he menstruates ideology.

Projection is fun.

The President openly lies. Sorry you believe every word he says.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Projection is fun.

The President openly lies. Sorry you believe every word he says.

Are you saying Abrego didn't have MS13 tattooed on his knuckles?

 

[Rightguide]

I'm having a difficult time with this rationale that the President can't declare an emergency without someone else's approval/review. Further, if Trump can't declare an emergency because the unrest is either insufficiently bad, or it doesn't exist at all; then how do States get away with declaring a "climate emergency"?

The whole talking point smacks of uncertainty and shaky foundations.

It’s written into the Democrats’ DNA that an authoritarian must always have the power to rewrite what the Constitution commands and what the people have decided with their vote. They would rather be ruled by despots than watch their dream of total control collapse.

 

[DeluxAuto]

It’s written into the Democrats’ DNA that an authoritarian must always have the power to rewrite what the Constitution commands and what the people have decided with their vote. They would rather be ruled by despots than watch their dream of total control collapse.

You live in Bizarro World.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

What branch of government has the authority to declare an emergency? Who has the authority to challenge it?

I followed the arguments and didn't hear many oral arguments about IEEPA itself. Most of what I heard is whether tariffs are taxes and that congress sets taxes. Hard to follow. The one statement I think I heard one justice ask was if the president can cancel tariffs (trade) why can't he impose them.

Kavanaugh; vvv

"Why would a rational congress say yeah, we're going to give the president the power to shut down trade-you're admitting that power's in there- but can't do a 1% tariff?"

In my opinion the judicial branch is grabbing executive authority.

The IEEPA gives the president the power to declare an economic emergency. One question is what constitutes an economic emergency (Trump has mentioned a whole bunch of reasons for tariffs). I think the bigger question the court is focusing on is does IEEPA give the president the power to tax. The Constitution puts those powers in the hands of the legislative branch.

It’s not quite as black and white as that. I believe presidents have imposed tariffs before without congressional authorization (Reagan tariffs on Japan, HW Bush on imported steel).

I don’t know how SCOTUS will rule but two courts have already ruled against the administration and the hearing yesterday has most legal beagles praising attorneys on both sides for their skillful arguments, but generally indicating a ruling unfavorable to the WH. It could be a fragmented ruling and narrow enough to give the administration flexibility in alternative basis for tariffs.

My personal view is that the outcome won’t be as dramatic as many people think. There are lots of imported goods coming into the US tariff-free, even from countries that have been targeted. It’s estimated that the aggregate average rate for items subject to tariffs is around 12% to 14%.

 

[HisArpy]

The IEEPA gives the president the power to declare an economic emergency. One question is what constitutes an economic emergency (Trump has mentioned a whole bunch of reasons for tariffs). I think the bigger question the court is focusing on is does IEEPA give the president the power to tax. The Constitution puts those powers in the hands of the legislative branch.

It’s not quite as black and white as that. I believe presidents have imposed tariffs before without congressional authorization (Reagan tariffs on Japan, HW Bush on imported steel).

I don’t know how SCOTUS will rule but two courts have already ruled against the administration and the hearing yesterday has most legal beagles praising attorneys on both sides for their skillful arguments, but generally indicating a ruling unfavorable to the WH. It could be a fragmented ruling and narrow enough to give the administration flexibility in alternative basis for tariffs.

My personal view is that the outcome won’t be as dramatic as many people think. There are lots of imported goods coming into the US tariff-free, even from countries that have been targeted. It’s estimated that the aggregate average rate for items subject to tariffs is around 12% to 14%.

My concern here is that having the power to declare an economic emergency is toothless unless the president has some authority to do something about it by levying tariffs.

We can look at other emergency powers, such as under FEMA, and see that once the emergency is declared, the President gains tools needed to deal with is.

Why should the IEEPA be treated/considered any different?

 

[icanhelp1]

The IEEPA gives the president the power to declare an economic emergency. One question is what constitutes an economic emergency (Trump has mentioned a whole bunch of reasons for tariffs). I think the bigger question the court is focusing on is does IEEPA give the president the power to tax.

Determining difference between tax and tariffs. So Oregon is concerned that revenue from tariffs are taxes or increase on import duties are a tax on people. I didn't hear one justice bring up the idea of leveling the playing field.

The Constitution puts those powers in the hands of the legislative branch.

It’s not quite as black and white as that. I believe presidents have imposed tariffs before without congressional authorization (Reagan tariffs on Japan, HW Bush on imported steel).

I don’t know how SCOTUS will rule but two courts have already ruled against the administration and the hearing yesterday has most legal beagles praising attorneys on both sides for their skillful arguments, but generally indicating a ruling unfavorable to the WH. It could be a fragmented ruling and narrow enough to give the administration flexibility in alternative basis for tariffs.

My personal view is that the outcome won’t be as dramatic as many people think. There are lots of imported goods coming into the US tariff-free, even from countries that have been targeted. It’s estimated that the aggregate average rate for items subject to tariffs is around 12% to 14%.

What constitutes an economic emergency or any other emergency is whatever the president deems it is. IMHO He raises and lowers tariffs on a daily basis. That, imho, is conducting foreign policy and acting in the best interest of our national security and the common good.

If the courts rule along the lines of precedent then Trump should win. The Trump administration's goal are zero tariffs.

I don't believe that the scope of tariffs is at issue here. In my opinion it's about whether congress in past legislations ceded tariff authority to the executive branch. Congress has also given the executive branch wide latitude to govern on day to day issues. The fact that Trump used IEEPA as a mechanism to impose a broad range tariffs is much less cumbersome then running to congress for every tariff issue. And then there's article II constitutional authority.

IMHO this suit is nothing more than another attempt at derailing the Trump administration.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Determining difference between tax and tariffs. So Oregon is concerned that revenue from tariffs are taxes or increase on import duties are a tax on people. I didn't hear one justice bring up the idea of leveling the playing field.

What constitutes an economic emergency or any other emergency is whatever the president deems it is. IMHO He raises and lowers tariffs on a daily basis. That, imho, is conducting foreign policy and acting in the best interest of our national security and the common good.

If the courts rule along the lines of precedent then Trump should win. The Trump administration's goal are zero tariffs.

I don't believe that the scope of tariffs is at issue here. In my opinion it's about whether congress in past legislations ceded tariff authority to the executive branch. Congress has also given the executive branch wide latitude to govern on day to day issues. The fact that Trump used IEEPA as a mechanism to impose a broad range tariffs is much less cumbersome then running to congress for every tariff issue. And then there's article II constitutional authority.

IMHO this suit is nothing more than another attempt at derailing the Trump administration.

I’m neither a constitutional lawyer or an expert on IEEPA so I’m leaving this one to the judges to sort out.

I didn’t watch or listen to the hearing. Just been following articles and tweets from others that did. I haven’t read that there was any argument over the fact that tariffs are a tax on imported goods.

Apparently Roberts did mention or ask something about tariffs being “foreign-facing” taxes. Haven’t pick up any sense that the justices saw any particular legal relevance to that. I believe the solicitor general representing the government conceded that importers pay the tax and pass as much as they can on to their domestic customers.

 

[icanhelp1]

I’m neither a constitutional lawyer or an expert on IEEPA so I’m leaving this one to the judges to sort out.

I didn’t watch or listen to the hearing. Just been following articles and tweets from others that did. I haven’t read that there was any argument over the fact that tariffs are a tax on imported goods.

Apparently Roberts did mention or ask something about tariffs being “foreign-facing” taxes. Haven’t pick up any sense that the justices saw any particular legal relevance to that. I believe the solicitor general representing the government conceded that importers pay the tax and pass as much as they can on to their domestic customers.

I watched all the arguments. I love watching solicitor generals go at it. They come prepared. It was difficult to follow the back and forth. Sometimes it was hard to identify what the argument ( suit ) was all about. Was it about Trump using emergency declaration (IEEPA ) unconstitutionally? Was it about tariffs are taxes? was it about did congress unconstitutionally cede their authority to the executive branch? We may not find out till June 2026, in the meantime this problem could be exponentially larger by then.

 

[HisArpy]

I watched all the arguments. I love watching solicitor generals go at it. They come prepared. It was difficult to follow the back and forth. Sometimes it was hard to identify what the argument ( suit ) was all about. Was it about Trump using emergency declaration (IEEPA ) unconstitutionally? Was it about tariffs are taxes? was it about did congress unconstitutionally cede their authority to the executive branch? We may not find out till June 2026, in the meantime this problem could be exponentially larger by then.

I think the issue was more about how far can "resist!" go in its efforts to stymie the government. But, as you say, we may not find out for several months.

 

[Rightguide]

November 7, 2025

A Tariff is Not a Tax​

By Stephen Helgesen

"It's scandalous the way the President has treated those poor Europeans (and American consumers) by imposing onerous tariffs on products coming into the United States."

"It's an abuse of his executive privilege and a sign that he is quickly becoming a trade dictator."

These and many other comments about President Trump's trade policy of imposing high tariffs on imported goods have found their way into America's media bloodstream.

And while it is indeed true that no president in history has been as bold and non-traditional in fighting the international tariff regime as Donald Trump, there have been eight presidents in just the last 100 years who had no problem in using tariffs as leverage to gain a better deal for American consumers.

The rest here: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/11/a_tariff_is_not_a_tax.html

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

November 7, 2025

A Tariff is Not a Tax​

By Stephen Helgesen

"It's scandalous the way the President has treated those poor Europeans (and American consumers) by imposing onerous tariffs on products coming into the United States."

"It's an abuse of his executive privilege and a sign that he is quickly becoming a trade dictator."

These and many other comments about President Trump's trade policy of imposing high tariffs on imported goods have found their way into America's media bloodstream.

And while it is indeed true that no president in history has been as bold and non-traditional in fighting the international tariff regime as Donald Trump, there have been eight presidents in just the last 100 years who had no problem in using tariffs as leverage to gain a better deal for American consumers.

The rest here: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/11/a_tariff_is_not_a_tax.html

There are certainly plenty of occasions where presidents have used tariffs. The article mentions several of them. But it doesn’t change the fact that the very definition of a tariff is a tax on imported goods. Trump himself often points to the revenue being generated by tariffs, and has even suggested tariffs might replace income taxes.

 

[ll74]

November 7, 2025

A Tariff is Not a Tax​

By Stephen Helgesen

"It's scandalous the way the President has treated those poor Europeans (and American consumers) by imposing onerous tariffs on products coming into the United States."

"It's an abuse of his executive privilege and a sign that he is quickly becoming a trade dictator."

These and many other comments about President Trump's trade policy of imposing high tariffs on imported goods have found their way into America's media bloodstream.

And while it is indeed true that no president in history has been as bold and non-traditional in fighting the international tariff regime as Donald Trump, there have been eight presidents in just the last 100 years who had no problem in using tariffs as leverage to gain a better deal for American consumers.

The rest here: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/11/a_tariff_is_not_a_tax.html

A tariff is a tax.

 

[icanhelp1]

There are certainly plenty of occasions where presidents have used tariffs. The article mentions several of them. But it doesn’t change the fact that the very definition of a tariff is a tax on imported goods. Trump himself often points to the revenue being generated by tariffs, and has even suggested tariffs might replace income taxes.

IMHO; incidental revenue from a tariff doesn't make it a tax unless tariffs are legally categorized as a tax. According to Cornell law a tariff is defined as a tax. Maybe the SCOTUS will have to redefine what a tariffs is.

When using tariffs to offset trade imbalances is it actually a tax? When levying a tariff against another country there's the other side of the trade agreement. Does SCOTUS have to include in its equation, ruling, the difference between free trade and fair trade and can tariffs be used more for enforcing equitable distribution between countries without being defined as a tax?

Countries don't have to trade with the US, but if they do then the US shouldn't have to shoulder the imbalance without options. Strictly my opinion, but if Tariffs are used to rebalance trade agreements which happen at a moments notice then it would seem logical to categorize these tariffs as an extension of foreign policy and national security.

Levying a tariff against countries buying oil during an oil embargo leaves that country with a decision to make as to whether it wants to trade with us. I understand that congress already has a list of sanctions ready to enact.

IMHO, Not one lone tariff would equate to an emergency but collectively do they fit the definition of responding to an emergency, IEEPA? If limiting the executive branch's authority to levy tariffs then what happens to the utility of using tariffs as a form of persuasion or threat? It would defang the president on the world stage.

I understand that there are many statutes that grant the executive branch a broad array of tariff options but this situation is different. It'll be interesting to say the least.

Maybe HisArpy can expound on why does Oregon and other states even have standing in this lawsuit. I would think it's up to congress to shut it down, but we all know congress is broken. It appears to me that states are attempting to bootstrap the article II authority to declare an emergency with the appropriate definition of tariffs as a tax, questioning does article II authority to levy tariffs coincide with article I congressional oversight. This is more about TDS than the rule of law imho.

 

[HisArpy]

Maybe HisArpy can expound on why does Oregon and other states even have standing in this lawsuit. I would think it's up to congress to shut it down, but we all know congress is broken. It appears to me that states are attempting to bootstrap the article II authority to declare an emergency with the appropriate definition of tariffs as a tax, questioning does article II authority to levy tariffs coincide with article I congressional oversight. This is more about TDS than the rule of law imho.

I'm not really certain that individual States do have standing in regards to national foreign affairs. What I'm certain of is that a lib judge believed they do so he ignored that issue, and/or the Gubmint lawyers didn't raise it when they shoulda done.

And you're right, it's about TDS and obstructionism more than anything and yet now we're talking about whether the President has the ability to declare an emergency without some sort of court oversight as well as his power to levy tariffs under IEEPA.

The entire issue could have been resolved by SCOTUS reversing the lower courts and remanding with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction/standing. Instead we're wasting time constructing straw arguments about taxes instead of the High Court dealing with the lower court's order for the Gov to "fully fund" SNAP when the Gov has no money to do that with. (For you stupids out there who believe; the Emergency Fund has 4.5 billion in it before it runs dry. Snap requires 8.5 billion per month so the Emergency Fund is 4 billion short. That means that the court can issue all the orders it wants about "fully funding SNAP" but until Congress is back in session there ain't no money. So, let's talk about where we go from here. Contempt of court? For who? Not the program administrator, he can't do anything unless authorized by the WH. Not Trump because, as President, he can't personally be held in contempt because he's immune. So, whatcha going do other than pound sand?)

 

[jomar]

With most of the attention focused on the elections yesterday, many folks might have missed the news on the NVIDIA chips to China situation.
View attachment 2575619

Good. Seems I recall trump, or maybe it was adults in the room, was against it originally for nat sec reasons until someone whispered in his ear he could get a 20% cut of profits on Nvidia’s last gen chips to China.