The Dictatorship

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

Published

3 hours 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

US lifts hold on immigration applications for doctors, but leaves others waiting

Published

1 hour ago

May 10, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

US lifts hold on immigration applications for doctors, but leaves others waiting

Libyan Dr. Faysal Alghoula needs to renew his green card to continue caring for roughly 1,000 patients in southwestern Indiana. But he hasn’t been able to do that since the Trump administration stopped reviewing applications for people from several dozen countries it deemed high-risk.

Alghoula has lived in the U.S. since 2016, and his current visa will expire in September if his application is denied.

But last week, Alghoula and doctors like him got a potential lifeline when the administration quietly made an exemption for physicians with pending visa or green card applications. It’s a move physicians, organizations and immigration attorneys had sought for months, citing widespread shortages and a high proportion of foreign-trained doctors, who disproportionately work in underserved areas, according to the National Library of Medicine.

The lack of doctors is top of mind for Alghoula, a pulmonologist and Intensive Care Unit doctor who serves a mostly rural population spanning parts of Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky.

“It is about four to five months wait to get the pulmonologist here,” he said.

Still, applicants and immigration attorneys say it’s unclear how big a difference the exemption will make. The change means doctors can have their cases reviewed, but it doesn’t guarantee their green cards or visas will be renewed. It is also unclear whether U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will be able to process those applications in time to meet immigration deadlines like Alghoula’s — especially as many doctors with pending applications still haven’t heard any updates from the federal government directly since the announcement was first made.

Despite his qualifications, Alghoula said he is still concerned about his upcoming appointment, given stories circulating about immigrants being detained at appointments to renew their paperwork.

“I’m still scared to go to my interview,” Alghoula said Wednesday. That uncertainty intensified on Friday when he learned that his interview, scheduled for early June, had been canceled without any explanation. He said he doesn’t know what that means for his application.

Meanwhile, the pause remains in effect for thousands of others, including researchers and entrepreneurs from 39 countries, including Iran, Afghanistan and Venezuela. While they’re on hold, many can’t legally work, get health insurance or a driver’s license. If they leave the U.S., they won’t be let back in.

Immigrants unable to work or see family

The Trump administration decided last year to stop reviewing green card and visa applications for people from a list of countries deemed high-risk and this year stopped reviewing visa applications for citizens of more than 75 countries over concerns they would seek public assistance. The moves came amid the U.S. government’s broader crackdown on immigrants.

The pause followed the shooting of two National Guard troops by an Afghan citizen, which the administration said highlighted “what a lack of screening, vetting, and prioritizing expedient adjudications can do to the American people.”

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees immigration officials, didn’t answer questions about the pause or recent changes to exempt physicians but said in an email it wants to ensure applicants are properly screened after determining the prior administration failed to do so.

“There are lots of bans and lots of pauses that are happening right now,” said Greg Siskind, an immigration attorney based in Memphis, Tennessee. “It is all about making life miserable for people who are here legally so they will choose other countries.”

It isn’t clear how many doctors have been affected by the pause, according to a spokesperson for the American Academy of Family Physicians, who said several doctors have reached out to the organization asking for help.

Some doctors have already been denied

Before the exemption, many immigrants filed federal lawsuits demanding that the government issue decisions on their cases.

One of them was Iranian Dr. Zahra Shokri Varniab, who came to the United States three years ago to conduct radiology research. She was waiting for a green card to attend a residency program but her application got stuck in the pause. She filed a lawsuit demanding an answer to her application and a federal judge ordered immigration officials to review her case.

They did — and denied her. The 33-year-old doctor said she believes it was in retaliation for her lawsuit.

“I feel completely confused,” Shokri Varniab said.

In court filings, U.S. government lawyers wrote that Shokri Varniab’s application contained inconsistencies about whether she plans to become a practicing doctor or researcher. She said she plans to do both.

She said the exemption doesn’t appear to apply to her since her case was decided but is seeking relief in court.

Immigration policy compounding war abroad

Immigrants who hold prestigious jobs in science and technology said they currently can’t work due to the pause because they’re waiting on employment authorization documents. Some said they are running out of money for rent and groceries and worry their careers could be thwarted if they’re forced to leave the country.

Those from Iran are especially worried about returning home during the ongoing war with U.S. and Israeli forces. They said they can’t regularly reach family due to the Iranian government’s internet blackout or count on them for financial support.

Kaveh Javanshirjavid came to the United States from Iran seven years ago to study for his doctorate in agriculture. He was supposed to start a lab job in January but needs employment authorization and his application is on hold.

The 41-year-old said he’s borrowing from friends to pay rent and relying on his wife’s doctorate stipend for basic necessities. But he doesn’t know how long that will last because she’s also Iranian and will need work authorization to get a job after graduating this summer.

“The whole of my life is on hold,” he said.

The Dictatorship

Democrats lose edge to retake House after Virginia redistricting ruling

Published

3 hours ago

May 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

May. 9, 2026, 2:13 PM EDT

Virginia Democrats entered the redistricting fight believing that redrawing the map would tilt the state decisively in their favor and give them control of the U.S. House.

Instead, the party’s aggressive push to reshape congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterms spiraled into a political and legal headache that stands to boost Republicans after the Virginia Supreme Court blocked their redistricting plan on Friday.

In fact, the Cook Political Reportwhich has been closely tracking developments in the mid-decade redistricting war, says the GOP now holds an advantage because of rulings from the Virginia Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. Republicans are likely to gain six to seven seats, according its newly updated analysis.

The Cook Political Report maintains Democrats are still positioned to retake the House. “But they are no longer overwhelming favorites,” it said.

Democratic political strategist and pollster Cornell Belcher agrees, saying his party wasn’t harmed by the Virginia court decision — it just wasn’t helped.

The ruling, he told MS NOW, “certainly makes it more difficult for Democrats to win because Republicans are rigging the system in real time.” But Belcher said Republicans run the risk of overreaching and making themselves “more vulnerable to a wave.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries condemned the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision as an assault on voting rights, telling MS NOW’s “Velshi” on Saturday, “This isn’t just Black people’s fight. It’s certainly everybody’s fight. It’s going to take an all-hands-on deck effort, and everybody has a stake in preserving a multi-racial democracy as part of the effort to preserve American exceptionalism.”

Still, some conservatives, pointing to a Fox News redistricting tracker, are now touting“massive seat gains” for Republicans as the battle over congressional maps intensifies.

The controversy in Virginia centered on a Democratic-backed proposal that would have dramatically reshaped the state’s congressional districts, potentially turning the state’s current 6-5 Democratic edge in the House into a near 10-1 advantage.

Republicans denouncedthe plan as an extreme partisan gerrymander, calling it a “desperate grab for power.” Virginia Democrats drew backlash because they had previously championed an independent redistricting processin 2020 as a safeguard against partisan mapmaking. Critics argued the party abandoned those principles once it saw an opportunity to expand its congressional advantage.

The redistricting fight in Virginia consumed months of political oxygen while lawsuitsmounted before Virginia voters ultimately approved the redistricting proposal in an April referendum in what would become a short-lived victory for Democrats.

Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones immediately filed a joint motionasking the high court to delay its decision as Virginia Democrats vowed to fight what they described as an effort to overturn the will of voters.

While it may not be the redistricting wipeout Democrats had hoped for, they expressed confidence after the ruling that they will carve out a path to regain House control.

“Make no mistake, Democrats will not roll over while Republicans undermine our democracy to entrench their power. This is not over. Democrats will use every tool at our disposal — the courts, Congress, and public opinion — to fight back on behalf of all Americans who believe in and seek to uphold fair elections, democratic representation, and the sacred right to vote,” Democratic National Chair Ken Martin said in a statement.

“The will of voters of Virginia and California are being challenged by Republicans,” Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., told MS NOW’s “The Weekend” on Saturday. “It’s really unbelievable. We’re going to have to fight back because there is no alternative at this point.”

The Virginia battle also reflects a broader national reality: Both parties increasingly view redistricting not as a procedural exercise, but as a high-stakes weapon in the fight for control of Congress.

“It’s a really sad state that our country is in when both political parties are using redistricting as their main strategy to win midterms,” former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. said in a social media post Saturday. “Both parties are not presenting strong cases as to why their policies and accomplishments are why the American people should vote for them.”

In Tennessee, Republicans approveda new congressional map on Thursday that splits the state’s only majority-Black district into multiple districts, a move Democrats are denouncing as Jim Crow 2.0.

“This is an attempt to take away, to destroy, to silence Black majority community of Memphis and it is an attempt, in one of the most significant, probably since the end of deconstruction to take away Black political voice in the United States Congress,” Tennessee state Rep. Justin Pearson said Saturday on MS NOW’s “The Weekend.”

The nationwide redistricting fight began after President Donald Trump pushed Republicans in Texas to pursue an aggressive congressional redraw aimed at strengthening the GOP’s hold on the House ahead of the midterms. Democrats in blue states fought back with redistricting strategies of their own, most notably in California.

Trump has seen his approval ratings dip to new lows, according to recent pollsas the war with Iran drags on and gas prices continue to soar, causing political headaches for Republicans just six months ahead of the midterms.

Still, Republicans are counting the redistricting rulings in the South as victories.

“Democrats just learned that when you try to rig elections, you lose,” Republican National Committee Chairman Gruters in a statement. “We took them to court, and we won.”

Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.

The Dictatorship

Black political power is under attack, again

Published

3 hours ago

May 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A nationwide campaign is underway to systematically dismantle Black political influence.

In Tennessee, Republicans are working to eliminate a congressional district that allows the majority-Black city of Memphis to choose its own representative.

In Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed off on a new map that eliminates a South Florida district, which had a near-majority Black electorate.

And in Louisiana, Republicans threw out thousands of votes that had already been cast so they could pass a new map that eliminates a congressional district that includes the majority-Black city of New Orleans.

Following the Supreme Court’s lead, Republican lawmakers have cast these as mere partisan exercises or even an attempt to be “race neutral.” But the pattern is not subtle, and Americans should not pretend otherwise.

At every turn, we are told this is not about race, that it’s just politics, that they’re just respecting the process.

Please. This is not some theoretical exercise being debated in a classroom. This is a threat to the multiracial democracy that our ancestors built over the last 250 years, often at great cost to them and the country.

I don’t think Americans fully understand the emergency of this moment.

I don’t think Americans fully understand the emergency of this moment.

The Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court gutted last week, was not some symbolic achievement. People bled and died for that law. Entire generations organized, marched and fought in courtrooms and legislative chambers so Black Americans could fully participate in democracy and wield real electoral power.

Now we are watching that progress get chipped away in real time, while some who should be on the frontlines protesting continue to debate whether it’s actually happening.

Trust me, it’s happening. And what frustrates me most is that America has seen this movie before.

After Reconstruction ended, the 14th and 15th amendments to guarantee basic rights for formerly enslaved people were still in place. Black Americans were still citizens. On paper, Black men still had the right to vote.

But then states stopped enforcing those rights. Courts weakened them. Governors aided and abetted the rollback. Business leaders looked away. And slowly, methodically, rights that existed in theory stopped existing in practice.

That is the part of American history people love to skip over.

The collapse of Reconstruction was not just about Klan terror and white lynch mobs. It was about institutions. It was about statehouses. It was about courts. It was about people in power deciding they’d had enough of multiracial democracy.

And for nearly 88 years, between the end of Reconstruction and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Black Americans fought to claw back the electoral power that had been stripped away.

Eighty-eight years.

That should haunt all of us right now, because too many Americans have convinced themselves that democratic progress is permanent, that the arc of history, once it bends toward justice, cannot swing back.

But democracy is not a destination; it is a marathon with no finish line.

Rights are only as strong as the institutions willing to enforce them — and the people willing to defend them.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act still exists today, on paper. But states have moved with extraordinary speed to dilute the voting strength of Black communities, redraw districts and weaken the electoral influence Black voters built over generations. And too often, the courts have responded by insisting Americans should ignore the obvious.

Again: trust your eyes.

I grew up a Black woman and a Democrat in Nebraska, a red state many people in national politics would probably write off entirely. But thanks to a quirk in state lawmy congressional district delivered electors for Barack Obama Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in the Electoral College. I know what can happen when voters are actually allowed to build coalitions and choose representatives responsive to them.

That is what democracy is supposed to do.

Voters deserve the opportunity to select representatives of their choice, even if the broader state leans one way or the other. Their voices should not be diluted because the people in power dislike the outcome.

Anyone who believes in multiracial democracy needs to understand where power is actually built in this country. State legislatures draw the maps. Governors sign the laws. State courts interpret voting rules. Secretaries of state oversee elections. America’s democracy is shaped in the states.

That is where this fight is being lost right now. And that is where it has to be won.

Because history tells us what happens when attacks on voting rights are treated like ordinary politics instead of what they actually are: an assault on who gets to wield power in America.

We have seen rights survive on paper while disappearing in practice before. We don’t have another 88 years to fix this.

Trust your eyes, then refuse to look away.

Don’t forget to subscribe to “MS NOW Presents: Clock It,” Symone Sanders Townsend’s new podcast series with Eugene Daniels on the latest political news, the catchiest cultural moments and how they converge. Listen to the latest episode here.