Tariffs - Can Trump be Stopped?

Al Sparks (View Post):

Since then, the Court hasn’t gone back to ruling on legislation on the implied non-delegation part of the Constitution.

Maybe it’s time for them to resume this, but I’m not holding my breath.

The Supremes have been ruling against Congressional delegation of powers to the executive a LOT in the last few years [overturning Chevron deference, West Virginia vs EPA, etc]. And there are a couple more open cases that should be decided by the end of this term.

1. Trump's tariffs are more a negotiating tactic than they are an economic policy. There is no reason to make a tempest in a teapot at this point.
2. Republicans have historically been happy to roll over for executive overreach by openly Socialist presidents (FDR, LBJ, Obama, etc). There's no reason to expect them to grow a spine now.
3. As we saw with John McCain, Republicans are not really motivated to be "Mavericks" unless there's an opportunity to thoroughly screw over their own constituents.

Al Sparks (View Post):

Another possibility is the courts. Congress isn’t really supposed delegate its powers.

Relevant: NCLA Files Lawsuit Challenging Trump's IEEPA Tariffs Against China.

Here is NCLA's description of their case:

Representing Simplified, a Pensacola-based company owned by entrepreneur Emily Ley, NCLA challenges President Donald Trump's unlawful attempt to require Americans to pay a heavy tariff on all products they import from China. President Trump imposed the tariff by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). However, this statute authorizes specific emergency actions like imposing sanctions or freezing assets to protect the United States from foreign threats. It does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. In its nearly 50-year history, no other president—including President Trump in his first term—has ever tried to use the IEEPA to impose tariffs. This lawsuit does not quibble with President Trump's declaration of an opioid-related emergency, but it does take issue with his decision to impose tariffs in response, without legal authority to do so.

What check is in place to keep Trump from using the possibility of favorable tariff rates to extort personal benefit for himself and family?
Impeachment? I doubt it.
Justice department? Laughable.

SCOTUS has already sent him the message that he is untouchable as President. Whether that was the intended message, it was the received message.

I wholly concede my “NeverTrump” bias, but that doesn’t answer above question of what check is available to the thoroughly corrupt tool of ultimate tariff authority?

Miffed White Male (View Comment):

The Supremes have been ruling against Congressional delegation of powers to the executive a LOT in the last few years [overturning Chevron deference, West Virginia vs EPA, etc]. And there are a couple more open cases that should be decided by the end of this term.

That's a marginal argument.

Chevron Deference, originally argued by the Reagan Justice Department, and adopted by the courts was to stop environmentalists from forcing the EPA, through the courts, to enforce laws that were mandated by Congress. The idea was that if a conservative administration came into power, they could choose not to enforce a statute based on their interpretation of that law with the the courts deferring to the executive. Because Republicans play checkers and Democrats play chess, the Democrats used Chevron Deference to interpret statute liberally and accrue more executive power when they had the presidency. Ending Chevron Deference only means that the courts now take a more active role in interpreting statute that delegates powers to the executive, it doesn't end actual delegation.

Court rulings on the EPA have also been based on what powers were delegated by statute, not on the constitutionality of the statute itself regarding non-delegation.