The Dictatorship

Trump’s tariffs keep losing battles in court — but he may still win the war

Published

1 month ago

May 9, 2026

May. 9, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

ByRay Brescia

The U.S. Supreme Court in February struck down the Trump administration’s “Liberation Day” tariffs as illegal and unconstitutional. Soon thereafter, the administration invoked a different provision of federal law to impose new tariffs. Now, the U.S. Court of International Trade, which has jurisdiction over these issues, has ruled that the administration’s second effort to impose tariffs under this different legal provision is also flawed.

But before American small businesses and consumers can breathe a sigh of relief, the administration is likely to appeal. And instead of using the Supreme Court’s decision as cover for a retreat from tariffs, the administration seems committed to pursuing unpopular policies that are bad for an economy which is also seeing consumer prices spike because of events in the Middle East.

Even if this effort to impose ill-advised tariffs on American businesses and consumers should ultimately fail once again in the courts, the administration is determined to press on.

When the Supreme Court ruled against the administration’s first effort at imposing tariffs, it found that the plain text of the Constitution vested Congress with the power to levy tariffs, and the limited authority the legislature had granted the executive under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize the tariffs.

Despite the fact that the tariffs had taken roughly $166 billion out of the pockets of domestic business and, by extension, American consumers, the administration pressed ahead to take another swing at tariffs, this time invoking a provision passed by Congress in the early 1970s to deal with a different kind of crisis, what lawmakers back then described as a “balance-of-payments” deficit.

To understand why the administration’s efforts have failed so far the second time around, one has to understand the context in which Congress passed the provision that the administration invoked when issuing them. At the time Congress passed this authority, what is referred to as Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974the U.S. had just come off the gold standard and the global economy was adjusting to a new economic monetary system. Members of Congress expressed concerns that this new system might harm U.S. economic interests if money did not flow smoothly throughout the global economy, sort of like a game of economic musical chairs.

Fifty years later, the new global economy functions far better than Congress expected it would, and there are no balance-of-payments concerns that could justify the tariffs imposed under Section 122. The language in the statute, written for a different time, empowers the president to impose temporary tariffs when there is a balance-of-payments issue. Making such an argument today is sort of like claiming the decline in the use of leaded gasoline, largely taken out of the economy in the 1970s, is a basis for justifying the new tariffs. More importantly, , and as the Court of International Trade ruled, there simply isn’t a balance-of-payments issue that would justify invoking Section 122.

Admittedly, the language in Section 122 is vague. But that’s where the administration is in a legal bind, one similar to that which it found itself in when it argued in favor of the IEEPA tariffs.

Indeed, either the plain text of Section 122 cannot be invoked unless there is a clear balance-of-payments problem (which there isn’t), o the administration can say the term “balance of payments” means whatever the administration wants it to mean. Under that interpretation, the statute delegates too much authority to the executive, and is unconstitutional. In either case, the administration loses.

Still, even if this effort to impose ill-advised tariffs on American businesses and consumers should ultimately fail once again in the courts, the administration is determined to press on. It has commenced steps designed to impose tariffs under more and different provisions of federal law.

At some point, the administration will likely succeed in imposing new tariffs in a way that is consistent with the laws that might authorize them, even if such tariffs might be a mere shadow of the sweeping tariffs the administration issued in April 2025.

We saw something like this occur in the first Trump administration, when it issued a ban on travel from predominantly Muslim countries. A series of orders issued by the administration were halted in the courts at firstbut the administration reissued new orders several times in an effort to pass legal and constitutional muster. In June 2018, nearly 18 months after the first such order went into effect, the Supreme Court, in a narrow, 5-4 decisionfound for the administration, concluding that the revised approach was not inconsistent with federal law or the Constitution.

At some point, the administration will likely succeed in imposing new tariffs in a way that is consistent with the laws that might authorize them.

A similar pattern is likely to emerge here. Despite the evidence that the tariffs are unpopular, that the price of goods continues to soar and that the American people are unhappy with the state of the economythe administration seems committed to imposing some kind of tariffs, perhaps for no other reason than to say that it did. Much as it was with the first Trump administration’s travel bans, when it comes to tariffs, the second Trump administration is likely to get something through that the courts will no longer block.

Of course, the administration can always simply go to Congress to seek approval for new tariffs. Such efforts are likely to fail even now, and if the Democrats should retake even one chamber in the 2026 midterms, new tariffs are most certainly doomed.

Perhaps that is why the administration keeps trying its hand at tariffs, hoping it can slip something through the courts. Whether it is through Section 122 or not, it is likely to succeed in some measure in the end.

While the current effort is stalled in the courts for now, at some point, the administration might get tariffs right, regardless of whether they are wrong for American businesses, consumers and the economy. For now, at least the Court of International Trade has given these tariffs the judicial thumbs down. But it seems unlikely the administration is going to take that as the final word on its mission to impose tariffs, regardless of how unpopular they are with the American people.

Ray Brescia

Ray Brescia is a professor of law at Albany Law School and author of the book “The Private Is Political: Identity and Democracy in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism.”

The Dictatorship

Court denies request to immediately block DOJ ‘slush fund’

Published

5 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Court denies request to immediately block DOJ ‘slush fund’

Jun. 10, 2026, 6:14 PM EDT

A federal judge in Washington has denied a bid Wednesday brought by a watchdog group to immediately block the Justice Department’s “anti-weaponization” fund, for now choosing to trust the department’s assertions that it is not moving forward with the fund.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled immediately, denying Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s request for a temporary restraining order that would have blocked the Department of Justice from taking steps to create the fund.

Throughout the 30-minute hearing, the DOJ reiterated that the administration was not moving forward with the nearly $1.8 billion fund, which seeks to compensate individuals who allege they have been politically targeted or victimized by the DOJ.

Andrew Block, the only lawyer present for the government, repeatedly cited Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s June 2 congressional testimonyin which he said the administration was “not moving forward” with plans to create the fund.

Leon indicated he agreed with the DOJ’s position that the case appeared to be moot, saying he was not persuaded there was an issue for the court to decide regarding the creation of the fund. He issued a stern warning to the DOJ, saying, “Don’t play possum with this court!” — meaning he does not want to be deceived.

The plaintiffs argued Blanche’s testimony did not amount to an official cancellation. Nikhel Sus, CREW’s attorney, said Blanche “refused to memorialize that rescission,” or in other words, put it in writing. Sus said that was “highly unusual.” Leon responded, “This whole case is highly unusual to say the least.”

Leon asked the government twice why they would not just rescind the order that established the fund. Block responded, “I don’t know,” and pointed again to Blanche’s public statements about the fund’s future.

Both Leon and Sus raised the issue of Trump’s continued public defense of the fund. “It can still be an important issue and also not moving forward,” Block said. “That isn’t a direction to move forward with the fund.”

Although Leon rejected CREW’s bid for an immediate block, he indicated he is still considering its request for a longer-term block against the fund.

A block order from a separate federal judge in Virginia remains in effect until at least Friday.

Fallon Gallagher is a legal affairs reporter for MS NOW.

The Dictatorship

Trump is accelerating our Social Security insolvency crisis

Published

5 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Jun. 10, 2026, 5:50 PM EDT

The date when Social Security’s trust fund is expected to run out of money just got bumped up. The fund is now projected to empty in 2032according to a new report released by Social Security’s trustees.

The new depletion date isn’t an earth-shaking change — it’s only a quarter earlier than the estimate in last year’s report. But it illustrates how President Donald Trump’s policies are degrading a program he promised to never jeopardize — and accelerating an approaching crisis in how our government will assist the elderly and disabled.

The report names three factors that contributed to the earlier insolvency date. One is a declining fertility rate, but the other two drivers can be traced back to Trump: a drop in immigration into the country, and the “substantial effect” of the tax policies in the One Big Beautiful Bill he signed last summer.

Trump’s acceleration of the program’s insolvency comes atop his assaults on the program’s administrative capacities.

Reduced immigration during Trump’s second term — especially when coupled with a declining fertility rate — strains Social Security because the program is funded through payroll taxes. Those come out of people’s paychecks, and fewer workers supporting an aging population means the program receives less revenue. Indeed, Social Security already has been tapping its trust fund for the better part of the past two decades because the program’s costs have exceeded its cash income. And as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out last yearlast year’s tax cuts were a boon to the rich but a bust for the solvency of the Social Security trust fund.

To be clear, if the fund is depleted, Social Security won’t go belly up. Benefits will continue to be paid out, but there will be a large drop in the amount. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the “average monthly cut would total $500, which is more than what the average retired household spends on groceries each month.”

That would be a huge blow to the budgets of many older Americans. Social Security is a major source of income for most retirees, and roughly 40% of beneficiaries over the age of 65 rely on it for most of their income. And it would mark the destabilization of the sole source of retirement security for most Americans that is supposed to be insulated from ups and downs — unlike 401K plans. As the CBPP has pointed outSocial Security is “most workers’ only source of guaranteed retirement income that is not subject to investment risk or financial market fluctuations.”

Trump’s acceleration of the program’s insolvency comes atop his assaults on the program’s administrative capacities. His cuts to the Social Security Administration have left offices understaffedincreased wait timesand reduced quality of customer service.

Ultimately, Trump is exacerbating a colossal social safety net problem that predates him, and the trust fund will hit dire straits after he has left office. Democrats need to have clear plans for shoring up the program and making it robust for the future — which will require not being sheepish about taxes as a tool for renewing the social contract. And when Republicans try to claim that they, too, are champions of Social Security, all Democrats need to do is point to the truth.

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He primarily writes about politics and foreign policy.

The Dictatorship

Wednesday’s Mini-Report, 6.10.26

Published

5 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* The latest from Northern Ireland: “The family of a man who lost an eye in a knife attack appealed for calm on Wednesday after the incident triggered a wave of anti-immigrant violence in Belfast overnight, with masked men burning families out of their homes and torching vehicles. The appeal ‌came as a Sudanese man appeared in court charged with attempted murder and as British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and politicians in Northern Ireland condemned the violence by ‘masked thugs’ that had targeted ethnic minorities.”

* In related news: “The British government hit out at X owner Elon Musk Wednesday, accusing him of whipping up tensions online ahead of disorder in Belfast.”

* The tenuous state of a dubious ceasefire: “Trump said the U.S. is going to hit Iran ‘hard’ today when pressed by reporters in the Oval Office about his statement earlier that Tehran will ‘pay the price’ for taking ‘too long’ to reach a peace agreement. ‘Well, we’re going to be attacking them and attacking them very hard, resuming bombing,’ he said.”

* The latest casualty figures from Lebanon: “Israel’s military offensive in Lebanon has killed at least 3,666 people, including 131 healthcare workers, and injured more than 11,300 since the U.S. and Israel began their war with Iran in late February, the Lebanese health ministry reported yesterday.”

* The changing nature of modern warfare: “Ukraine is wreaking havoc on unarmored trucks and trains in the battlefield’s rear, using drones with upgraded engines and batteries, integrated Starlink communication systems and new artificial-intelligence capabilities. The ramped-up attacks are causing fuel shortages, complicating troop rotations and reducing Russian military activity on the front.”

* This seems like a reasonable request: “Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee demanded Wednesday that Bill Pulte, President Donald Trump’s controversial pick for acting director of national intelligence, submit to a full security check before assuming the post, including an examination of his financial holdings and foreign contacts.”

* Some market trends can’t be stopped despite the White House’s best efforts: “Even as President Donald Trump boosts coal over clean energy, solar power is hitting new milestones in the U.S. and remains the leading source of new power. Data released Wednesday by global energy think tank Ember, along with a report by the Solar Energy Industries Association and analytics firm Wood Mackenzie, show the continued growth of solar and decline of coal in the United States despite federal policy. In May, for the first time, solar supplied more of the nation’s electricity than coal, or 12.8%, Ember said.”

* A bizarre schedule for a nonemergency vanity project: “Federal officials are laying more groundwork to begin construction on President Donald Trump’s planned 250-foot-tall triumphal arch, sharing additional documents that detail the project’s scope and an aggressive timetable for potentially completing work before Trump’s term ends. According to National Park Service documents posted this month, the administration envisions 20 hours per day of construction on the arch, year-round, in hopes of completing the project within two to three years.”

See you tomorrow.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”