'Not for unelected judges to decide': Trump admin says tariffs are 'immune from judicial scrutiny' as it appeals order

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Law & Crime

May 29th, 2025, 11:36 am


The Trump administration wasted no time notifying a federal court in Manhattan that the government would be appealing a blockbuster ruling blocking many of the president’s international tariffs. Just hours after a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of International Trade issued its unanimous order, attorneys with the Department of Justice requested that enforcement of the judgment be stayed until the case is heard by an appellate court.

The president’s unilaterally imposed tariffs, which went into effect on April 2, had been the centerpiece of the administration’s plan to pressure foreign nations into striking trade deals more beneficial to the United States. That strategy has now suffered a significant, albeit early, setback.

The administration asserted that “the Court erred” by interfering with Trump’s ability to conduct foreign affairs, arguing that halting the tariffs, even temporarily, could pose a grave risk to the state of international relations and U.S. national security.

“It is critical, for the country’s national security and the President’s conduct of ongoing, delicate diplomatic efforts, that the Court stay its judgment,” attorneys with the DOJ’s Civil Division wrote in the 17-page motion for a stay. “The harm to the conduct of foreign affairs from the relief ordered by the Court could not be greater.”

Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/not-for-unelected-judges-to-decide-trump-admin-says-tariffs-are-immune-from-judicial-scrutiny-as-it-appeals-order-blocking-levies/

---

Full headline: ‘Not for unelected judges to decide’: Trump admin says tariffs are ‘immune from judicial scrutiny’ as it appeals order blocking levies

Link to MOTION (PDF viewer) - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25956369-govuscourtscit17080590/

Link to MOTION (PDF) - https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25956369/govuscourtscit17080590.pdf

This is to the appeals court but reports are out now to take it to the SCOTUS.

[Chasstev365]

1. 7-2 Fail in the Supreme Court

Alito and Thomas will side with The Burger King.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. seeking immunity at SCOTUS again. They created an addiction for power. /tn

[Progressive dog]

3. The stupidity of Trump never fails

to surprise. The courts are not deciding, the decision was made long ago. The courts just bothered to read the Constitution and the law.

[Torchlight]

4. He's having a really miserable month.

Three rulings against his cornerstones, official drunks speaking in public for him, the Pope giving him side-eye benedictions, and his recent Taco sobriquet appears to be taking root in the collective dictionary.

Administration can say the court erred. The administration can say 2 + 2 = 22. Neither is a rational or supported assertion.

[yonder]

5. "delicate diplomatic efforts" ??

What a stretch.

The only "delicate efforts" I've seen is making sure the bottom line of the president and those swirling about him continues to increase. Anything else outside that filthy white porcelain bowl is being bludgeoned with an avaristic maul.

[k_buddy762]

6. Checks and balances, Mr President

learn what they are and what they mean.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. But A-okay for non-elected DOGE to decide the fate of thousands and US policies?

[Nigrum Cattus]

8. El Stupido and his band of traitors should understand -

Everything is subject to judicial scrutiny !

[FakeNoose]

9. All those high-priced lawyers working for Chump

... and NOT ONE has taken time to explain to him how the Constitution works.

[Grins]

10. "A stay is critical to avoid immediate irreparable harm to United States foreign policy and national security."

"National security," the go-to justification of every dictator.

And, "immediate irreparable harm?" How?
...to United States foreign policy..." How?

[Grins]

11. Filed with the court - yesterday. Same DAY as the decision.

That's pretty quick!

Implies they were working on this in advance, anticipating the Court would rule against them.

[cstanleytech]

12. That's only if Congress enacts them. Not the President.

[dickthegrouch]

13. Exactly when was SCROTUS elected?

Or aren't they Judges?

[The Roux Comes First]

14. Do They Mean "Unelected Judges" Like the Supremes Who Lied in Their Hearings, Have Foresworn Precedent,

And have basked in the marginally-legal court-packing by that turtle?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

15. trump's attorneys had to make the legal commitment to refund all tariffs in order to get a stay of the rulings on trump'

These tariffs are subject to judicial review and trump had to make commitments to get a stay.

trump's attorneys had to make the legal commitment to refund all tariffs in order to get a stay of the rulings on trump's tariffs. The court of appeals issued the stay of the two injunctions based on the agreement by the trump administration to refund all tariffs if the ruling of these two courts are upheld on appeal. 

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

BREAKING - Trump admin pledges to refund tariffs: Donald Trump’s Justice Department persuaded the U.S. Court of Appeals to stay the lower court’s injunction on his emergency tariffs—after pledging to refund anyone who paid them if it ultimately loses. In its filings, the government stated, “If tariffs imposed on plaintiffs during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful, then the government will issue refunds to plaintiffs, including any post-judgment interest that accrues.” The court granted the stay.

[republianmushroom]

16. We shall see if the roberts court believes in the rules of law.