Trump loses MAJOR case, dealt MASSIVE blow

Added: 2026-05-12

[00:00:00]I'm joined now by All Rise News's Adam Classfeld. Adam, we have a major ruling in court right now that's going to have global implications as far as Trump is concerned. Can you explain what just happened?

[00:00:08]Absolutely, Brian. What happened is a Court of International Trade has just ruled that Trump's latest justification for imposing tariffs, and in this case a 10% global tariff, was just as illegal as his first justification. Now, we knew this was coming when the Supreme Court struck down the original rationale of Trump's tariffs. It was an unprecedented decision to use what's known as IEEPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as a justification to unilaterally impose tariffs. That's what the Supreme Court struck down earlier in Trump's term. Now, in his dissent Justice Kavanaugh uh suggested that there any other number of justifications that Trump could use. Now, it's important to note that the majority said those justifications don't wash, either.

[00:00:56]But Trump tried it anyway. He issued a proclamation saying that he's going to use the Trade Act to try to accomplish the same goal, unilateral tariffs. And what a three-judge panel majority found is that that justification doesn't wash, either. Adam, Donald Trump is still imposing tariffs or increasing tariffs across the world kind of at will. Just a few days ago on May 1st, he increased his tariff um on on cars and trucks that were imported from the European Union from uh 15% up to 25%. So, how does this ruling right here impact his subsequent behavior as it relates to tariffs?

[00:01:34]Well, one thing we've always seen with Trump, you give him an inch and he'll take a mile. And what when the Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs, what they said very clearly was the President of the United States doesn't have the unilateral authority to impose tariffs. That in our constitutional system, it is the Congress that has the power of the purse. Now, there are some in the descent uh like Kavanaugh who say, "Well, you can try this statutory scheme. You can try that statutory scheme." And that's what he was trying. Now, I haven't read the particular legal rationale that he gave for those 25% tariffs. But, we're finding here and what was very clear in the original Supreme Court ruling is that all of those other justifications come with time limitations. He can't impose them forever.

[00:02:28]This particular justification, the Trade Act, had a 150-day window. And so, he's running out of options. He's running out of loopholes here. And I'm going to read from the decision. You have them saying flat out the proclamation, quote, is invalid and the tariffs imposed on plaintiffs are unauthorized by law. That is a shot across the bow. That is saying, "This is illegal. If you're trying to use this justification, the Trade Act, that doesn't work, either."

[00:02:56]So, he's down two laws. He's almost certainly going to appeal this decision just as he did the first round of tariffs.

[00:03:05]But, what we've seen here now, I expect it to go much faster. In this ruling, there is talk about the refund process.

[00:03:13]The refunds on the original tariffs are coming along the way. And so, Trump will I expect keep trying to find loopholes, but those keep getting patched. Now, I'm assuming that he's going to put his best defenses forward first. And so, if he failed on the first two tariff schemes that he attempted, wouldn't logic suggest that any subsequent efforts to say, "Okay, fine. I'm not going to use IEEPA. I'm not going to use whatever other tariff scheme I've attempted already. I'm going to try the third best or the fourth best or the fifth best."

[00:03:46]Doesn't that suggest that like this is kind of a doomed effort if his best options already got thrown out in court?

[00:03:52]Right. Well, I don't think that he's pursuing these ideas based on legal merit and how it will how it will end up in the long term.

[00:04:00]>> is this just the throw against the wall and see what sticks method?

[00:04:03]Absolutely. And we've seen it happen in very different context. Look at Kilmar Brigo Garcia. You know, next week Kilmar Brigo Garcia is going to be back in court fighting another attempt to send him to Liberia. It's the third time. And so, what we have in terms second term especially are these radical exercises of power that he's daring the courts to catch up with him. As a matter of fact, and I don't want to get too far into the weeds in this ruling, but I think the details are important in this instance.

[00:04:35]Uh we were talking a little bit earlier, Brian, about how in this ruling the there is a question about the scope of the injunction because a coalition of states sued and one of those states has standing to sue and a couple of the importers do as well. So, there is a question in the wake of this ruling uh how many people will be entitled to refunds. And the reason why that happened is that when Trump was putting forward his birthright citizenship ban, he is almost certainly going to lose uh that argument, but along the way he fought against and won the abolition of nationwide injunctions. And so, I think the way Trump sees things is have the opening point of a negotiation. Choose something as lawless as possible, as brazen as possible, and see where the courts stop you. And where they won't stop you, take that space. Adam, is there any indication as to how the Supreme Court may rule on this if and when they get their hands on this thing?

[00:05:38]Because we all know that Trump is going to continue to appeal this thing up until he's exhausted every legal remedy possible.

[00:05:44]Absolutely. And I think that Chief Justice Roberts actually tipped his hand here because as I mentioned, it was Kavanaugh who suggested there were other statutory schemes that Trump could use.

[00:05:56]And and Roberts responded to him at that point and expressed his skepticism about all of those alleged workarounds. So, yes, I agree with you, Brian, that this will almost inevitably go back to the Supreme Court, but I think that it's going to be the definition of insanity that they keep trying the same thing hoping for a different result.

[00:06:17]>> I was going to say, I mean, have you met Have you Have you I don't know how familiar you are with the president of the United States, but that is a a pretty apt descriptor. Also, I mean, the whole thing is feels just kind of insane to me because it's pretty clear that Congress has the ability the the the unilateral ability to impose tariffs. And so, when Trump usurped that authority for himself just because he feels like a strong man, that's no legal basis, no legal justification to be able to unilaterally impose tariffs. And he'll, you know, grab out wildly for different legal justifications to be able to do so, but it I presume it's pretty clear in the law that this power belongs to Congress and that every time Trump attempts to say, "Okay, fine, it's not under this authority, but it's under this authority. Okay, fine, if it's not under this, then it's under this." that he's just kind of grasping at straws here, which only which only reinforces the fact that that he he was never doing this with any well-reasoned, you know, under any well-reasoned legal doctrine. He's just, you know, retroactively searching for some legal justification to justify his actions, but in actuality, this this power does and should belong to Congress.

[00:07:25]Absolutely. And it raises the question, if this is such a sound and smart economic policy, why is he afraid to make his case to Congress? Because Congress might not like the fact that he is imposing tariffs on uninhabited islands that other than penguins are the recipients of his tariffs, Congress might push back. But there is nothing stopping Trump from trying to persuade a Congress controlled by his own party from imposing these tariffs that he believes are good for the country or that he claims are good for the country.

[00:08:00]Make your case. It's not the the law that requires him to do that. It's the Constitution of the United States. Yeah.