In Batshit Rant Trump Seems to Beg John Roberts to Rule before Full Brunt of His Tariffs Hits
A few weeks ago, when we were waiting for the Circuit Court of Appeals to issue its ruling on a challenge to Trump’s tariffs, I did this video providing my prediction for the way that Trump hoped to get the Supreme Court to uphold his claimed unilateral authority to impose tariffs.
On Friday, the court issued its ruling.
Seven judges joined in a per curiam opinion basically ruling that IEEPA, the basis Trump used to impose the tariffs in question, did not authorize the fentanyl-related and trade deficit tariffs in question. Three of those judges — a Poppy Bush, an Obama, and a Biden appointee — joined in a concurring opinion written by another Biden appointee, Tiffany Cunningham, which held that IEEPA doesn’t permit the President to impose any tariffs. And three judges — two George W appointees and an Obama appointee — joined in Obama appointee Richard Taranto’s dissent arguing that IEEPA did give the President authority enough to impose the tariffs before the court (the remainder of the judges on the per curiam were a Clinton appointee and two Obama ones).
While the court remanded the case to the Court of International Trade to adjust to SCOTUS’ recent rulings against universal injunctions (meaning CIT would have to certify a class of importers who qualify for relief), it basically froze its ruling entirely until October 14 to give both parties a chance to appeal.
The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate through October 14, 2025, during which the parties may file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. If, within that period, any party notifies the Clerk in writing that it has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, the Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate pending (1) the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari or (2) a judgment of the Supreme Court if certiorari is granted. While the issuance of the mandate is withheld, the United States Court of International Trade shall take no further action in this case.
Now, as Scott Bessent made clear in that video, the plan from the Administration was always to delay a SCOTUS hearing until October so that by the time it ruled in January, the country would become so reliant on tariffs that SCOTUS would uphold the tariffs even if it recognized they were unlawful.
Since Friday, Trump has been engaged in his typical ranting, first repeating claims already made that if he lost the ability to arbitrarily destroy the US economy it would, “destroy the United States of America.” Then, Trump moved onto his bullshit invocation of partisanship, claiming that “a Radical Left group of judges didn’t care” that if he couldn’t bring in the “TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS” he falsely claimed he had brought in, then, “our Country would be completely destroyed.”
But then today Trump added an additional ploy: urgency.
Lying this time that his tariffs were bringing in $15 trillion of investments, Trump wailed that “TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!!!” because if “a Radical Left Court” were allowed to terminate his tariffs, than the US would become the “Third World Nation” Trump is intent on making it.
Not only is this tweet financial fraud on a massive scale — none of the deals involve any enforceable investments, much less on a scale that keeps doubling with each passing day.
But it makes no postural sense. The tariffs will remain in place until at least October, just like Bessent wanted, unless the plaintiffs find a basis to appeal. And even then, it would be Trump’s far right SCOTUS making the decision, not the mixed group of appointees at the Circuit Court of Appeals.
The biggest reason to think the “TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!!!” is that Congress is coming back and will have to pass a budget to deal with the destruction wreaked by Trump’s Big Ugly Bill if it understands that these tariffs are illusory, even while the tariffs themselves will continue to destroy small and even larger businesses.
Or perhaps more importantly, Congress is coming back with further evidence that Trump’s policies are deeply unpopular. Trump may feel the need to stave off the kind of rebellion we have yet to see from the captive right wing majorities on the Hill.
Whatever the reason, it represents a tactical flip-flop from the strategy Bessent laid out just weeks ago.
Trump’s ability to decree reality perhaps becoming more challenging. Wonder what will happen when enough of the somnolent American public finally regains consciousness.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. THIRD REQUEST: Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this comment as “Will Pickens” triggering auto-moderation; it has been edited to reflect your established username. Please check your browser’s cache and autofill; future comments may not publish if username does not match. **NONCOMPLIANCE AFTER FOUR REQUESTS -> BLOCKLIST** /~Rayne]
Nope, it is not a sleepy American, it is a zombie American. I rest my case in Ms. Noem discussing the takeover of Chicago. That was a zombie person with a lot of plastic surgery.
I feel very strong about this. They are zombies at this point. I joke. They may never wake up is my point. Think about JD.
Zombies, there is no other way to describe them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mar-a-Lago_face
The Supreme Court six person majority members have become Trump’s lieutenants and the most enduring threat to the Constitution we face. I refuse to hold out hope that they will rule according to the law. It’s just a matter of what new “doctrine” Roberts will create in order to get to “yes” for Trump. Just a total sham.
[Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We adopted this minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is too short and common, your username will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. /~Rayne]
Literally the most corrupt court in history, and racist to boot. They’re scum and they will be remembered as scum forever.
I want all of the corrupt minions to be subject to damnatio memoria – the erasing of their names from history.
Not that I normally espouse “enemies” lists but after Leavitt’s, Miller’s, Hegseth’s, RFK jr’s, Noem’s, (the list is far longer) etc. current output I started thinking perhaps a list should be compiled of those who have acted directly against the country or aided and abetted by lying and deception in those efforts. We could almost require a Nuremburg-like investigation and trial(s). I am not particularly disposed to forgiveness and reconciliation.
I know, vanity and all, but I keep wondering if maybe the supremes take a pass on this. It’s just too obvious.
When is it too obvious? Trump vs. US? Birthright citizenship? Roe?
“Trump’s policies are deeply unpopular”
Not with the lobbyist class, who are hitting payday in making cases to the administration for and against specific tariffs, even if their business is basically consumer fraud:
Foreign governments bet big to lobby Trump on tariffs. Most came up empty. [Politico]
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/09/foreign-governments-tariffs-lobby-00500211
I’ve heard from a lot of small businesses, both in and outside the US, and they’re losing money and may have to close down because of the tariffs. (De minimis exists for a reason, and while $800 is a fair amount of money, it isn’t unusual if you’re buying a machine part or something similar.)
Maybe he’s worried about the inflation? If inflation starts hitting harder, there will be even less political will to keep his tariffs?
Tariffs will be inflationary, but not that much. Surely not enough to alarm the electorate.
First, the giant tariffs will be in effect embargoes. So that will be a one-for-one subtraction from economic activity. Too bad for those frozen out but not the sort of thing that moves a nation.
The smaller tariffs will be too small to affect J.Q. Public that much. A 15% tariff results (absent gouging) in an 8% retail price increase; but only on the small fraction of household spending on imports.
Both sides are wildly overestimating the impacts. The inflation will be irritating but not crippling, and the tax revenue will not be anywhere near enough to show up on the Treasury graphs.
It’s stupid but not like shooting yourself in the foot. More like scraping your knee on purpose.
One last thing: Even if the courts do give us antifascists what we want, that does not undo the tariffs that are increased by agreement. A president undoubtedly has authority to make mutual agreements, subject to Congress, but it is hard to see this Congress refusing to ratify ‘free’ agreements.
If most of the tariffs are invalidated, those nations that made ‘agreements’ with trump are going to be mighty unhappy.
Given that the inflation (also sparked by immigration raids) is already huge in some areas this take seems … wildly unfounded.
And you also seem to misunderstand the status of the agreements. Most are not written down. None are trade agreements.
Let them eat cake much, Harry? I find your comments on what is, and what isn’t an economic issue insulting as hell. Many of us out here in rural America live on the financial edge. What apparently is small change to you, can completely shuffle how we run our households. The policies that bore you, make me want to go throw sandwiches at people.
“Tariffs will be inflationary, but not that much. Surely not enough to alarm the electorate.”
So we should just ignore the portion of the electorate who work for businesses laying off workers or folding because of the tariffs…and ignore their business owners.
“The smaller tariffs will be too small to affect J.Q. Public that much. “
Except for the “smaller tariffs” that now discourage shipment of many products like personal care, beauty, and food products made overseas without an analog in the US. We should just ignore that portion of the electorate, too.
I get it, you subsist on white bread alone; you cannot see tariffs affecting you and therefore it shouldn’t affect the rest of the country.
It’s times like this once again I wonder what the hell you really are, Eagar.
Let’s assume Bessent is right and about a billion dollars a day in tariffs are collected. Some people will be hit hard but a billion a day is way less than 1% of the economy.
In 1921, the Great Depression began for farmers, who at that time were about a third of the population but a much smaller proportion of the electorate (because black farmers couldn’t vote). Yet we recall the Twenties as Roaring.
Today, no segment of the electorate is anywhere near as big as farmers were in the Twenties.
Maybe when chocolate prices go up, Americans will rebel. I remember how angry they were when candy bars went up from a nickel. But they didn’t rebel when trump’s steel tariffs swept tens of thousands of jobs out of the economy.
In an economy that’s as big and as ramified and as flexible as this one, it’s hard to figure how tariffs make a big impact. Politically, I wish they would.
Cooler and more rational heads than mine have already responded to Harry’s tariff comment.
My addition: Fixed Income. The kind of fixed income without any built-in hedge against inflation. The kind a lot of us–a growing number, especially among Trump/GOP voters–are forced to live on.
Factor that in with the massive loss of healthcare and other social services in Trump’s Fugly Bill, and you have a recipe for not just recession (who’s gonna buy anything?) but, given the denial of climate change, a potential New Great Depression.
And then there’s whatever the hell is going on with SSA. Speaking of fixed incomes–which may be determined by Big Balls, or Russia, or both.
Tariffs, Property Taxes, and the Quadruple Whammy Nobody’s Watching
Tariffs don’t fix the deficit. They just shift the burden down the food chain. Washington collects the revenue, while states, cities, and households take the hit. The Treasury market keeps humming, but the rest of the system is walking into a fiscal and confidence crash.
https://wallstreetexaminer.com/2025/08/tariffs-property-taxes-and-the-quadruple-whammy-nobodys-watching/
This. As society atomizes, the various veins of chaos affect different demographics differently. We’re headed to either a nationwide strike, or violence. Given the speed of destruction, I see no other viable alternative at this point in time. While willing to be chastised, I still am interested in a collective plan of action.
I’m not going to put up with the language of inevitability regarding violence. Not here, no. You need to think what your words do: you give permission, legitimize violence; you poison the thinking of others who don’t see violence as inevitable but are persuadable; you poison this site which does not need any more excuses by fascists for attacks upon it.
You’re not thinking hard enough if you can’t see anything ahead but a binary. You want a collective plan of action? Get to work and stop locking in your false binary.
A SCOTUS ruling would allow the RWNM Wurlitzer to crank up the tariff scheme as ‘settled law’ not subject to any revision in perpetuity no matter how phony their claims are proven to be.
WH polling has apparently determined the tariffs are likely doomed in the next Congress so they want to remove any ability to stop them.
The only explanation for these tariffs we have is Trump’s, that the US is being “ripped off” by foreign nations running a trade surplus, and the tariffs are way to equalize that imbalance. This sounds like his kind of logic, and we know that being “ripped off” offends him personally and deeply on what passes for a moral level with him, so I think this is the Rock upon which he has built his Tariff Church. All of the babbling from minions like Bessent are just attempts to rationalize the unrationalizable (if that’s not a word it should be).
We know someone in the White House is paying close attention to 2026 polling because of Trump’s plea for 5 more House seats from Texas. His urgency makes some sense in that context, but not much. His administration’s plan for dealing with the judiciary (keep filing suits and appeals to keep his status quo in place as long as possible until the Supremes make the problem go away) has been working pretty well. It may be simply that Tariffs are his baby, his great Idea, and he will protect them at any cost.
Could be a simple quid pro quo- Supreme Court majority gives Trump his tariffs and Trump helps sell to his people the Supreme Court majority’s likely ending gay marriage.
Trump doesn’t want to let a passel of Appeals Court judges to receive credit for turning the US into a third-world country. He wants the credit.
His predictions about tariff revenue are based on their continuing for a very long time. Not gonna happen. As Marcy points out, his predictions about investment dollars pouring in from abroad are even more fantastic. Does he imagine that Foxconn will lead the charge?
He’s wrong about *everything*, from solar and wind energy to economics.
I think this all comes down to one thing – does a court (any court) take Trump’s word as fact or not. When the Supreme Court gave that horrible ruling last year that the POTUS is above the law, (he/she must be given deference in every case), that ruling implied that everything he says must be believed as he is definitely acting in the best interests of the US. The problem is, you cannot trust anything he says (example – his rant in this posting) and he is acting in opposition to the best interests of the US. The courts that do recognize his bs, rule against him. The courts who believe that he is infallible or the second coming or Pope or whatever, rule in his favor. Tariffs included. I think, by his behavior, that he intends to harm the United States and rather than give him deference, with him, there should be an assumption of an intent to harm until proven otherwise. How does one prove that Trump has a guilty mind in the courts that give him deference?
rational assessment, thank you, horsewoman.
It’s this
“Or perhaps more importantly, Congress is coming back with further evidence that Trump’s policies are deeply unpopular. Trump may feel the need to stave off the kind of rebellion we have yet to see from the captive right wing majorities on the Hill.”
The string of losses and his health concerns are all coming together as Congress comes back. Those things are not unrelated and, although it’s hard to fathom, maybe just maybe some cracks are forming. One can hope anyway.
It seems worth noting that tariffs are not actually a particularly effective way to reduce the trade deficit, and that incremental foreign investment into the US will tend to produce, on a one-to-one basis, increases in the trade deficit.
I have nothing to add with respect to the legal points discussed in this thread, but it seems relevant that the economics of Trump’s trade and tariff policies are incoherent. (Half-assed_steven makes this point concisely.)
Trump clearly values (and wildly exaggerates) the quantity of inbound foreign investment that have or will result from his tariff tantrums.
He clearly does not know–and his advisers must be afraid to tell him–that increases in inbound foreign investment will almost inevitably lead to increases in trade deficits rather than their reduction. For background see the article posted on July 28 on the Peterson Institute website: “The origins of the US trade deficit and the futility of tariffs”
https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2025/origins-us-trade-deficit-and-futility-tariffs
i appreciate the topic and the added commentary. if the destructive tariffs are made law, the great miscalculator can be very proud of himself because at this rate the us economic standing, stability and vitality will be in a bobsled race with ruzzia to the bottom. even a superficial understanding of modern capitalism (read Wealth of Nations, or consider the Great Depression) reveals quite plainly that the reckless and divisive way that the Traitor-in-Chief has conducted his tariff policy will destroy the economic foundation of the United States and undermine all of our vital international alliances to the benefit of our adversaries (cf Putin, Modi and Xi’s meeting, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/01/world/asia/china-xi-putin-modi.html).
my guess is that by the time this travesty reaches the felons in black robes, their decision will all come down to whether or not the stock bubble is still expanding or seriously contracting. jaime dimon has been perfectly ambiguous about his position vis-a-vis the tariffs, i.e., wall street has been hedging its bets and will ultimately decide whether the tariffs will become law. once jpmorgan makes its decision, it will inform the Supreme Felons, because as everyone knows, the billionaires own 6 of them
The man is a serial liar. What isn’t understood by everyone about that fact?
It’s otherworldly how he’s changed the Supremes, who are legislating from the bench and changing our Constitution at the behest of the liar. This makes me seriously angry and at my age that’s not good. All I can do is keep working for the party.
Thank you Marcy and crew for some of the best research and writing around. To truth.
Makes one wonder if its Trump or Roberts, et al, who are really the enemy at the gate.
Judges sound off about the CALVINBALL COURT [!!!]
In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court’s handling of Trump cases
Ten judges tell NBC News the Supreme Court needs to explain its rulings better, with some urging Chief Justice John Roberts to do more to defend the judiciary against external criticism. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-trump-cases-federal-judges-criticize-rcna221775 Lawrence Hurley Sept. 4, 2025, 5:00 AM EDT
8/21/25 Justice KB Jackson dissent in the NIH case:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a103_kh7p.pdf
Steve Vladeck responding to the NBC article:
https://bsky.app/profile/stevevladeck.bsky.social/post/3lxz4atrgqs2e
September 4, 2025 at 8:06 AM
From that very long footnote 9:
From the Burroughs Harvard ruling:
Vladeck’s link: https://www.harvard.edu/federal-lawsuits/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2025/09/gov.uscourts.mad_.283718.238.0_1.pdf
Julian Sanchez with a really apt metaphor:
https://bsky.app/profile/normative.bsky.social/post/3lxxlbc7vx22e
September 3, 2025 at 5:29 PM
The decisions SCOTUS has made over the last 10 years have cost them a lot of the respect they think they’re owed. Roberts seems to want to leave a legacy as CJ – well, he should think about the one that he’s getting. It’s going to be like Roger Taney’s.
reply to PJ Evans:
If only Taney had a wife making bank off her husband’s position. Which he did not.
Forgot to mention, there is a really good chart
[with link to docs] included in this article.
I’m sure they’re all hysterically laughing all the way to their banks.
The Supreme Court Keeps Throwing Judges Under the Bus.
They’re Finally Fighting Back.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/09/supreme-court-news-roberts-kavanaugh-gorsuch.html
Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern Sept 05, 2025