1
00:00:02,880 --> 00:00:07,080
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,400 --> 00:00:13,160
Speaker 2: They're calling it Operation Midway Blitz. President Donald Trump has

3
00:00:13,240 --> 00:00:17,960
Speaker 2: started his immigration cracked down in Chicago, with agents flooding

4
00:00:18,000 --> 00:00:21,160
Speaker 2: the city as it becomes the latest flashpoint in a

5
00:00:21,280 --> 00:00:25,400
Speaker 2: national struggle over how far the federal government can push

6
00:00:25,640 --> 00:00:31,000
Speaker 2: local authorities in sanctuary cities to cooperate with its immigration agenda.

7
00:00:31,440 --> 00:00:34,959
Speaker 2: Though the administration has said the operation will target the

8
00:00:35,000 --> 00:00:37,559
Speaker 2: worst of the worst criminals who are not in the

9
00:00:37,600 --> 00:00:42,440
Speaker 2: country legally, Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker says the operation

10
00:00:42,600 --> 00:00:47,599
Speaker 2: is making many law abiding immigrants, even those who are citizens, fearful.

11
00:00:47,920 --> 00:00:50,120
Speaker 1: They're afraid to go shopping, They're afraid to take their

12
00:00:50,120 --> 00:00:51,240
Speaker 1: own children.

13
00:00:51,280 --> 00:00:55,360
Speaker 3: To school because they have mixed status households.

14
00:00:56,200 --> 00:00:59,880
Speaker 2: Immigration advocates say that ICE agents also appear to be

15
00:01:00,080 --> 00:01:03,840
Speaker 2: stopping and arresting people on the street. So how will

16
00:01:03,880 --> 00:01:07,360
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court's ruling this week that lifted the ban

17
00:01:07,520 --> 00:01:12,400
Speaker 2: on ICE agents in LA stopping and detaining people solely

18
00:01:12,440 --> 00:01:17,800
Speaker 2: based on their race, language, occupation, or location affect the

19
00:01:18,000 --> 00:01:22,880
Speaker 2: ICE operations in Chicago. My guest is Laura Muokerjee, a

20
00:01:22,959 --> 00:01:26,120
Speaker 2: professor at Columbia Law School, and director of the school's

21
00:01:26,200 --> 00:01:29,800
Speaker 2: immigrants Rights clinic, Laura, how do you think the Supreme

22
00:01:29,840 --> 00:01:34,960
Speaker 2: Court's ruling this week will affect these immigration stops?

23
00:01:35,640 --> 00:01:41,040
Speaker 4: The Supreme Court issued a devastating opinion on Monday. It's

24
00:01:41,080 --> 00:01:45,160
Speaker 4: first worth noting that the full Court issued a decision

25
00:01:45,240 --> 00:01:49,240
Speaker 4: that was only one paragraph long, and it was accompanied

26
00:01:49,320 --> 00:01:53,680
Speaker 4: by a concurring opinion by Justice Kavanaugh and a dissenting

27
00:01:53,720 --> 00:01:58,840
Speaker 4: opinion that was joined by this three liberal progressive justices,

28
00:01:59,120 --> 00:02:04,720
Speaker 4: Justice Mayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson. And the question

29
00:02:05,080 --> 00:02:10,320
Speaker 4: in the case is whether a federal district court's decision

30
00:02:10,680 --> 00:02:14,400
Speaker 4: should stand. And the federal district court had found that

31
00:02:14,760 --> 00:02:18,480
Speaker 4: raids were part of a pattern of conduct by the

32
00:02:18,520 --> 00:02:22,359
Speaker 4: government that likely violated the Fourth Amendment. And the district

33
00:02:22,360 --> 00:02:26,320
Speaker 4: court found that the government was stopping individuals based solely

34
00:02:26,360 --> 00:02:30,839
Speaker 4: on four factors. They're apparent race or ethnicity, whether they

35
00:02:30,880 --> 00:02:34,440
Speaker 4: spoke Spanish or English with an accent, the type of

36
00:02:34,480 --> 00:02:37,200
Speaker 4: location where they were found, such as a car wash

37
00:02:37,280 --> 00:02:39,600
Speaker 4: or a bus stop, and the type of job that

38
00:02:39,680 --> 00:02:43,640
Speaker 4: they appeared to work at. And the district court found

39
00:02:43,680 --> 00:02:49,320
Speaker 4: that these four factors, taken alone, that's not sufficient to

40
00:02:49,440 --> 00:02:55,000
Speaker 4: satisfy the Fourth amendments requirement of reasonable suspicion, and the

41
00:02:55,040 --> 00:02:59,639
Speaker 4: District Court enjoined the federal government immigration officers from using

42
00:02:59,680 --> 00:03:04,240
Speaker 4: those four factors alone in carrying out immigration enforcement. The

43
00:03:04,520 --> 00:03:09,520
Speaker 4: Executive brand then appealed that case to the Ninth Circuit,

44
00:03:09,720 --> 00:03:12,640
Speaker 4: and the Ninth Circuit said, while the case is pending,

45
00:03:12,680 --> 00:03:16,640
Speaker 4: we're going to let the lower court decision stand. And

46
00:03:16,680 --> 00:03:20,800
Speaker 4: then the Executive Branch further appealed that to the US

47
00:03:20,840 --> 00:03:25,600
Speaker 4: Supreme Court, and in monday's one paragraph decision, the Court said,

48
00:03:25,919 --> 00:03:30,959
Speaker 4: we are vacating, we are ending the lower court decision.

49
00:03:31,520 --> 00:03:35,360
Speaker 4: What this means in practice is that immigration officers, as

50
00:03:35,400 --> 00:03:40,040
Speaker 4: well as other law enforcement officers now practically have an

51
00:03:40,080 --> 00:03:44,040
Speaker 4: invitation to engage in racial profiling when they are carrying

52
00:03:44,080 --> 00:03:49,400
Speaker 4: out stops. As the concurrence by Justice Kavanaugh suggests, race

53
00:03:49,640 --> 00:03:54,600
Speaker 4: ethnicity can now be used as a factor in establishing

54
00:03:55,040 --> 00:03:58,160
Speaker 4: reasonable suspicion about whether or not a person is in

55
00:03:58,160 --> 00:04:01,880
Speaker 4: the United States illegally without documentation.

56
00:04:02,960 --> 00:04:07,880
Speaker 2: Justice Kavanaugh really downplayed what these stops are like, saying,

57
00:04:08,200 --> 00:04:11,720
Speaker 2: you know, it's typically brief. You can go free after

58
00:04:11,760 --> 00:04:14,440
Speaker 2: you show you're a citizen or that you're here illegally.

59
00:04:15,120 --> 00:04:17,000
Speaker 2: Does that comport with reality.

60
00:04:17,520 --> 00:04:17,799
Speaker 3: Justice.

61
00:04:17,880 --> 00:04:23,400
Speaker 4: Kavanagh's concurrence minimizes the violence that is used in these

62
00:04:23,440 --> 00:04:28,640
Speaker 4: stops and minimizes the harm to individuals, families, and communities

63
00:04:28,720 --> 00:04:32,520
Speaker 4: from racial profiling. One of the plaintiffs in this very

64
00:04:32,600 --> 00:04:37,960
Speaker 4: case is Jason Gavidia, a Latino US citizen who was

65
00:04:38,720 --> 00:04:43,840
Speaker 4: ordered to stop by masked agents and they asked him

66
00:04:43,920 --> 00:04:47,720
Speaker 4: questions then used violence against him, even though he had

67
00:04:47,800 --> 00:04:51,440
Speaker 4: repeated at least three times that he's an American citizen.

68
00:04:52,000 --> 00:04:55,040
Speaker 4: They took his phone, they pushed him up against the

69
00:04:55,160 --> 00:04:58,400
Speaker 4: metal gated fence, They put his hands behind his back,

70
00:04:58,440 --> 00:05:01,719
Speaker 4: they twisted his arms, and they never gave him his

71
00:05:01,839 --> 00:05:09,200
Speaker 4: ID back. Another US citizen, Jorge Viramontes, was repeatedly questioned

72
00:05:09,240 --> 00:05:12,240
Speaker 4: when he was at his place of work between June

73
00:05:12,320 --> 00:05:15,560
Speaker 4: ninth and June nineteenth of this year. Every time he

74
00:05:15,720 --> 00:05:18,400
Speaker 4: was asked if he was a US citizen, he had

75
00:05:18,440 --> 00:05:22,400
Speaker 4: to show his ID. And the effect of this decision

76
00:05:23,000 --> 00:05:27,200
Speaker 4: is that America has become a show me your papers

77
00:05:27,279 --> 00:05:32,159
Speaker 4: country for the overwhelming majority of people of color. While

78
00:05:32,200 --> 00:05:37,800
Speaker 4: this decision specifically focuses on people who are Latino in LA,

79
00:05:38,279 --> 00:05:43,600
Speaker 4: the implications of this decision invite racial profiling nationwide.

80
00:05:44,160 --> 00:05:46,040
Speaker 2: I said they were going to flood the zone. This

81
00:05:46,120 --> 00:05:50,040
Speaker 2: gives them now the authority to go full speed ahead.

82
00:05:50,520 --> 00:05:55,480
Speaker 2: What does that mean for cities like Los Angeles and Chicago.

83
00:05:56,080 --> 00:05:59,240
Speaker 4: With the passage of the so called Big Beautiful Bill,

84
00:05:59,640 --> 00:06:04,600
Speaker 4: there are now billions more dollars allocated to ICE and

85
00:06:04,760 --> 00:06:10,479
Speaker 4: immigration enforcement and immigration detention. What this opens up is

86
00:06:10,520 --> 00:06:16,360
Speaker 4: the possibility for immigration officers and federal law enforcement officers

87
00:06:17,040 --> 00:06:22,039
Speaker 4: on the streets of many major cities in the United States. Now.

88
00:06:22,080 --> 00:06:25,719
Speaker 4: I hope we never get to that point, and we

89
00:06:25,760 --> 00:06:30,599
Speaker 4: are seeing the people and elected officials of Chicago resisting

90
00:06:30,960 --> 00:06:35,279
Speaker 4: there so that what happened in LA isn't replicated in Chicago.

91
00:06:36,040 --> 00:06:38,880
Speaker 4: And in terms of what happens next, it will be

92
00:06:39,600 --> 00:06:43,400
Speaker 4: up to the American people and the extent to which

93
00:06:43,640 --> 00:06:46,880
Speaker 4: we can resist the worst abuses of the executive brand.

94
00:06:47,120 --> 00:06:50,800
Speaker 2: So I know you represent some families that are in

95
00:06:51,120 --> 00:06:55,120
Speaker 2: ICED attention. How difficult is it to represent someone who's

96
00:06:55,200 --> 00:06:56,200
Speaker 2: being held by ICE?

97
00:06:57,080 --> 00:07:02,359
Speaker 4: It is extraordinarily difficult to represent people in ICE custody.

98
00:07:02,880 --> 00:07:06,480
Speaker 4: Right now, the youngest person I'm representing in ICE custody

99
00:07:06,560 --> 00:07:11,040
Speaker 4: is only two years old. Immigration detention centers are often

100
00:07:11,120 --> 00:07:15,840
Speaker 4: located in areas that are hard to access in geographically

101
00:07:15,880 --> 00:07:19,800
Speaker 4: remote areas of the country. For example, the Family Detention

102
00:07:19,960 --> 00:07:24,360
Speaker 4: Center in Dilley, Texas is more than an hour outside

103
00:07:24,360 --> 00:07:29,400
Speaker 4: of San Antonio, and it can be difficult to have

104
00:07:29,920 --> 00:07:37,080
Speaker 4: reliable access to your clients and to prepare court hearings. Increasingly,

105
00:07:37,480 --> 00:07:41,760
Speaker 4: immigration court hearings for asylum seekers who are detained or

106
00:07:41,800 --> 00:07:46,520
Speaker 4: being scheduled on a very fast turnaround time because the

107
00:07:46,600 --> 00:07:51,320
Speaker 4: administration is trying to push forward deportations as quickly as

108
00:07:51,520 --> 00:07:57,280
Speaker 4: possible without sufficient time and sufficient due process for many

109
00:07:57,320 --> 00:08:01,040
Speaker 4: immigrants to prepare. It's also very difficult for many immigrants

110
00:08:01,320 --> 00:08:05,880
Speaker 4: to access counsel while they are in detention because it's

111
00:08:05,920 --> 00:08:09,440
Speaker 4: so much harder to contact a lawyer and get someone

112
00:08:09,480 --> 00:08:11,000
Speaker 4: to work with you while you're detained.

113
00:08:12,040 --> 00:08:15,120
Speaker 2: I mean, what's life like in an iced atention facility.

114
00:08:15,880 --> 00:08:23,280
Speaker 4: It's very difficult for many immigrants in immigration custody. Overwhelmingly,

115
00:08:23,600 --> 00:08:31,200
Speaker 4: immigration detention centers are overcrowded and unsanitary. Often people don't

116
00:08:31,240 --> 00:08:36,880
Speaker 4: have access to high quality or sufficient food. At the

117
00:08:36,920 --> 00:08:41,599
Speaker 4: Family Detention Center in Dilly, children have submitted swarn testimony

118
00:08:41,640 --> 00:08:46,240
Speaker 4: to federal court explaining that there is not adequate clean

119
00:08:46,559 --> 00:08:50,960
Speaker 4: water putable water and that adults at times have pushed

120
00:08:51,080 --> 00:08:54,120
Speaker 4: children out of the way in an effort to get

121
00:08:54,160 --> 00:08:59,240
Speaker 4: access to the water. There are questions about the quality

122
00:08:59,360 --> 00:09:05,080
Speaker 4: of metaw care in immigration detention centers, and immigration detention

123
00:09:05,360 --> 00:09:10,880
Speaker 4: is simply not an appropriate place for children who are

124
00:09:10,920 --> 00:09:14,560
Speaker 4: seeking asylum. One of the cases I worked on the

125
00:09:14,640 --> 00:09:19,839
Speaker 4: summer involved a six year old child with a leukemia

126
00:09:19,960 --> 00:09:24,640
Speaker 4: diagnosis who was arrested when he and his family showed

127
00:09:24,800 --> 00:09:29,000
Speaker 4: up to their immigration court hearing in LA and then

128
00:09:29,080 --> 00:09:33,520
Speaker 4: they were detained for over a month. During that time,

129
00:09:33,559 --> 00:09:37,560
Speaker 4: I begged DHS to release the six year old boy

130
00:09:37,600 --> 00:09:41,560
Speaker 4: and his family, and it took filing a federal habeas petition,

131
00:09:42,080 --> 00:09:46,480
Speaker 4: so a petition in federal court for DHS to realize

132
00:09:46,480 --> 00:09:48,439
Speaker 4: that this family should not be detained.

133
00:09:49,240 --> 00:09:51,840
Speaker 2: Aren't there special protections for children?

134
00:09:52,720 --> 00:09:59,000
Speaker 4: For decades, immigrant children has received protections under an agreement

135
00:09:59,120 --> 00:10:02,720
Speaker 4: a settlement agreed known as the Flora's Settlement Agreement, which

136
00:10:02,840 --> 00:10:08,400
Speaker 4: requires the federal government to provide basic minimum protections for

137
00:10:08,520 --> 00:10:12,040
Speaker 4: children in federal care, both in terms of conditions of

138
00:10:12,080 --> 00:10:17,720
Speaker 4: custody and prioritizing children for release. Because nearly everyone recognizes

139
00:10:17,800 --> 00:10:21,840
Speaker 4: that children shouldn't be in federal immigration custody federal detention

140
00:10:22,040 --> 00:10:26,600
Speaker 4: centers for long periods of time. Very Unfortunately, the Trump

141
00:10:26,679 --> 00:10:32,320
Speaker 4: administration has moved to terminate, meaning end, the protections in

142
00:10:32,360 --> 00:10:37,640
Speaker 4: the Flora's Settlement Agreement, and if the Trump administration prevails

143
00:10:37,760 --> 00:10:42,080
Speaker 4: in court, children in federal immigration custody will be left

144
00:10:42,240 --> 00:10:46,400
Speaker 4: with virtually no means of protection.

145
00:10:47,360 --> 00:10:51,560
Speaker 2: As far as the asylum hearings themselves, are the standards

146
00:10:51,679 --> 00:10:55,239
Speaker 2: what they should be, or are they imposing tougher standards

147
00:10:55,280 --> 00:10:56,080
Speaker 2: for asylum?

148
00:10:56,880 --> 00:11:00,920
Speaker 4: Increasingly it's harder to win asylum in the US United States.

149
00:11:01,400 --> 00:11:04,880
Speaker 4: In recent days, the Board of Immigration Appeals has issued

150
00:11:04,960 --> 00:11:10,760
Speaker 4: multiple opinions that rescind protections for categories of asylum seekers,

151
00:11:11,120 --> 00:11:14,560
Speaker 4: such as asylum seekers who've been persecuted based on their

152
00:11:14,559 --> 00:11:19,000
Speaker 4: membership in a particular family or based on their gender

153
00:11:19,040 --> 00:11:24,280
Speaker 4: and nationality, for example, for survivors of domestic violence. In addition,

154
00:11:24,520 --> 00:11:29,280
Speaker 4: there have been myriad changes on the immigration judge bench.

155
00:11:29,640 --> 00:11:33,120
Speaker 4: Since January of twenty twenty five. It appears that more

156
00:11:33,160 --> 00:11:37,920
Speaker 4: than one hundred immigration judges has been fired, and the

157
00:11:37,960 --> 00:11:43,680
Speaker 4: Trump administration is trying to replace those seasoned immigration judges

158
00:11:43,800 --> 00:11:48,720
Speaker 4: with judges from the military jag officers who Instead of

159
00:11:48,800 --> 00:11:52,119
Speaker 4: being trained for months, which has historically been the standard

160
00:11:52,440 --> 00:11:56,760
Speaker 4: for immigration judges, will receive two weeks of training before

161
00:11:57,240 --> 00:12:00,840
Speaker 4: dealing with cases on a daily basis where people's lives

162
00:12:00,960 --> 00:12:04,800
Speaker 4: are literally at risk. These are life or death decisions

163
00:12:04,840 --> 00:12:08,240
Speaker 4: for many of the individuals who appear before immigration court.

164
00:12:08,800 --> 00:12:11,440
Speaker 2: Laura, thanks so much for giving us a little bit

165
00:12:11,440 --> 00:12:15,439
Speaker 2: of an inside look at iced attention. That's Professor Laura

166
00:12:15,480 --> 00:12:19,960
Speaker 2: Mukherjee of Columbia Law School. Coming up next, the Supreme

167
00:12:20,040 --> 00:12:23,640
Speaker 2: Court is taking on Trump's tariffs. This is bloomberg.

168
00:12:24,440 --> 00:12:28,240
Speaker 3: If you took away tariffs, we could end up being

169
00:12:28,280 --> 00:12:29,480
Speaker 3: a third world country.

170
00:12:30,080 --> 00:12:34,920
Speaker 2: President Trump warned of dire consequences after the US Court

171
00:12:34,920 --> 00:12:37,880
Speaker 2: of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that he had

172
00:12:37,920 --> 00:12:42,160
Speaker 2: exceeded his authority by invoking an emergency law to hit

173
00:12:42,320 --> 00:12:47,600
Speaker 2: nations across the globe with steep tariffs. The administration rushed

174
00:12:47,600 --> 00:12:51,079
Speaker 2: to the Supreme Court to appeal, asking for a quick

175
00:12:51,160 --> 00:12:54,960
Speaker 2: resolution concerning his signature economic policy.

176
00:12:55,720 --> 00:12:59,480
Speaker 3: If that ruling everyone against US, I guess would have

177
00:12:59,480 --> 00:13:03,680
Speaker 3: to give back hundreds of billions. We would have to

178
00:13:03,720 --> 00:13:08,360
Speaker 3: give trillions and trillions of dollars back to countries that

179
00:13:08,400 --> 00:13:11,480
Speaker 3: have been ripping us off for the last thirty five years,

180
00:13:12,080 --> 00:13:15,760
Speaker 3: and I can't imagine it happening on a legal basis.

181
00:13:15,800 --> 00:13:19,280
Speaker 3: They have no legal basis whatsoever. But on a common

182
00:13:19,320 --> 00:13:21,240
Speaker 3: sense basis, it would destroy America.

183
00:13:21,960 --> 00:13:26,840
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court accommodated Trump, as the conservative majority has

184
00:13:26,840 --> 00:13:31,199
Speaker 2: in almost all of the emergency cases filed since January.

185
00:13:31,840 --> 00:13:35,640
Speaker 2: It's set a lightning fast timetable by the Court standards

186
00:13:35,800 --> 00:13:40,040
Speaker 2: with arguments in November. The appeal will test the conservative

187
00:13:40,160 --> 00:13:43,680
Speaker 2: controlled court. It will be the first time during Trump's

188
00:13:43,720 --> 00:13:48,480
Speaker 2: second term that the justices will actually hear arguments, get

189
00:13:48,559 --> 00:13:53,120
Speaker 2: full briefings, and then weigh the underlying legal merits of

190
00:13:53,120 --> 00:13:57,560
Speaker 2: an administration policy. Joining me is David Townshend, a partner

191
00:13:57,600 --> 00:14:01,360
Speaker 2: in Dorsey and Whitney's international trade group. Dave, the Court

192
00:14:01,400 --> 00:14:06,280
Speaker 2: has set an unusually aggressive schedule for the court. When

193
00:14:06,320 --> 00:14:07,720
Speaker 2: do you think we'll get a decision?

194
00:14:08,280 --> 00:14:11,240
Speaker 1: Hard to know. The Supreme Court, you can move at

195
00:14:11,280 --> 00:14:16,400
Speaker 1: its own case. The schedule that was agreed to had

196
00:14:16,440 --> 00:14:21,160
Speaker 1: been proposed by the United States and its appeal from

197
00:14:21,200 --> 00:14:25,000
Speaker 1: the Federal Circuit decision, and was not opposed and actually

198
00:14:25,000 --> 00:14:28,440
Speaker 1: supported by the plaintiffs in the case. Who are US

199
00:14:28,560 --> 00:14:32,760
Speaker 1: importers and alleged that the tariffs are unlawful in terms

200
00:14:32,800 --> 00:14:37,360
Speaker 1: of schedule. I suppose because they did establish expedited briefing.

201
00:14:38,080 --> 00:14:41,160
Speaker 1: We have the hearing in November. If the Supreme Court

202
00:14:41,240 --> 00:14:43,880
Speaker 1: wanted to move very quickly, it could issue something before

203
00:14:43,920 --> 00:14:46,520
Speaker 1: the end of the year. It's also possible that this

204
00:14:46,560 --> 00:14:49,840
Speaker 1: will go well into twenty twenty six before we actually

205
00:14:49,920 --> 00:14:50,640
Speaker 1: have an opinion.

206
00:14:51,280 --> 00:14:55,200
Speaker 2: The Federal Circuit ruled seven to four that AIPA, the

207
00:14:55,400 --> 00:15:00,760
Speaker 2: International Emergency Economic Powers Act, doesn't authorize the these tariffs.

208
00:15:01,040 --> 00:15:05,040
Speaker 2: Explain how the Federal Circuit came to that conclusion.

209
00:15:05,520 --> 00:15:09,080
Speaker 1: Yeah, the Federal Circuit had said that the case is

210
00:15:09,160 --> 00:15:12,720
Speaker 1: really a statutory interpretation case, at least in terms of

211
00:15:12,720 --> 00:15:15,120
Speaker 1: the opinion issued by the Federal Circuit. Federal Circuit was

212
00:15:15,200 --> 00:15:19,440
Speaker 1: looking at whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Actor AIPA

213
00:15:20,280 --> 00:15:24,560
Speaker 1: authorizes the teriffs that the Trump administration has imposed on

214
00:15:24,680 --> 00:15:29,160
Speaker 1: global sources, including for trade deficits as well as fentanyl

215
00:15:29,280 --> 00:15:34,560
Speaker 1: related tariffs under a EPA, and the Federal Circuit said

216
00:15:34,800 --> 00:15:39,440
Speaker 1: that it didn't think AEPA did authorize the teriffs that

217
00:15:39,440 --> 00:15:42,960
Speaker 1: the Trump administration imposed and held them all awful. The

218
00:15:43,000 --> 00:15:45,280
Speaker 1: Federal story it looked to a couple different sources to

219
00:15:45,360 --> 00:15:49,560
Speaker 1: support its conclusion. There's quite a bit of discussion in

220
00:15:49,600 --> 00:15:54,280
Speaker 1: the opinion about other areas of US trade law, areas

221
00:15:54,320 --> 00:15:59,360
Speaker 1: where Congress had used words explicitly allowing the imposition or

222
00:15:59,400 --> 00:16:03,200
Speaker 1: adjustment of tariffs or duties. When the Federal cirgut noted

223
00:16:03,240 --> 00:16:06,240
Speaker 1: that AEPA doesn't use the word duties or tariffs in

224
00:16:06,320 --> 00:16:11,760
Speaker 1: it it allows the regulation of importation into the United States.

225
00:16:12,120 --> 00:16:15,160
Speaker 1: But in light of the absence of the words tariffs

226
00:16:15,240 --> 00:16:18,160
Speaker 1: or duties, but all sergu found that they did not

227
00:16:18,280 --> 00:16:22,720
Speaker 1: think Congress intended that AEPA allowed the imposition of global

228
00:16:22,720 --> 00:16:25,440
Speaker 1: tariffs in the way the Trump administration had done. They

229
00:16:25,480 --> 00:16:29,520
Speaker 1: also pointed out that as a constitutional matter, the power

230
00:16:29,680 --> 00:16:34,000
Speaker 1: to impose duties under Article one resides with Congress, and

231
00:16:34,080 --> 00:16:38,240
Speaker 1: they use that as a way to interpret AEPA as

232
00:16:38,320 --> 00:16:42,240
Speaker 1: inconsistent with what the Trump administration had done. And they

233
00:16:42,280 --> 00:16:46,120
Speaker 1: also noted that no prior president had used AIPA to

234
00:16:46,160 --> 00:16:47,120
Speaker 1: impose tariffs.

235
00:16:47,960 --> 00:16:51,880
Speaker 2: So it sounds like the majority sort of took the

236
00:16:51,960 --> 00:16:57,040
Speaker 2: safe route, the conservative route in their analysis, although there

237
00:16:57,080 --> 00:16:58,400
Speaker 2: were dissenting judges.

238
00:16:59,240 --> 00:17:03,000
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, the federal circuit fractured seven to four.

239
00:17:03,080 --> 00:17:05,879
Speaker 1: As you said, there were some of the judges on

240
00:17:05,920 --> 00:17:09,479
Speaker 1: the Federal Circuit who said that ap but never allows tariffs.

241
00:17:09,600 --> 00:17:12,720
Speaker 1: The majority opinion didn't quite go that far, and then

242
00:17:12,760 --> 00:17:16,720
Speaker 1: the descent said that they do think AIPA is intended

243
00:17:16,720 --> 00:17:19,719
Speaker 1: to allow the president to impose the kind of tarifs

244
00:17:19,760 --> 00:17:22,400
Speaker 1: and adjust the tariffs in the way the Trump administration has.

245
00:17:23,240 --> 00:17:26,159
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that the majority opinion really sticks

246
00:17:26,200 --> 00:17:29,359
Speaker 1: to this as a statutory interpretation question at its core,

247
00:17:30,160 --> 00:17:34,520
Speaker 1: rather than looking to the constitutional issues such as a

248
00:17:34,560 --> 00:17:36,840
Speaker 1: non delegation doctrine that decide the case.

249
00:17:37,760 --> 00:17:43,119
Speaker 2: What's the key argument that the Trump administration is making here?

250
00:17:43,600 --> 00:17:47,160
Speaker 2: Does it focus on that provision in AEPA that says

251
00:17:47,400 --> 00:17:51,199
Speaker 2: that the president can regulate the importation of property to

252
00:17:51,280 --> 00:17:52,560
Speaker 2: address an emergency?

253
00:17:53,280 --> 00:17:56,960
Speaker 1: Yeah? Right. The AYEPA text allows the president to take

254
00:17:57,000 --> 00:18:00,960
Speaker 1: action to regulate the importation of items into the United States.

255
00:18:01,160 --> 00:18:05,920
Speaker 1: And the Trump administration's core argument is that the power

256
00:18:05,960 --> 00:18:09,840
Speaker 1: to regulate encompasses the power to impose taxes and duties

257
00:18:10,280 --> 00:18:13,119
Speaker 1: such as they've done here. And as support for that,

258
00:18:13,440 --> 00:18:18,200
Speaker 1: they note that the AEPA statute itself allows a variety

259
00:18:18,240 --> 00:18:22,080
Speaker 1: of actions. It allows broad discretion to the president to

260
00:18:22,560 --> 00:18:27,320
Speaker 1: prohibit importation of items into the United States. It allows

261
00:18:27,440 --> 00:18:32,199
Speaker 1: the president to prohibit transactions with certain countries. There are

262
00:18:32,240 --> 00:18:36,439
Speaker 1: certain persons in non US locations, and so if it

263
00:18:36,520 --> 00:18:41,159
Speaker 1: allows the prohibition of transactions or the prohibition of imports,

264
00:18:41,240 --> 00:18:45,200
Speaker 1: and also allows the regulation of imports, then, according to

265
00:18:45,200 --> 00:18:47,960
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, follows that they can impose taxes or

266
00:18:48,040 --> 00:18:52,600
Speaker 1: duties or something short of such prohibitions, including the terrorf

267
00:18:52,640 --> 00:18:57,080
Speaker 1: regime that the Trump administration is currently administering under AEPA

268
00:18:57,160 --> 00:19:01,200
Speaker 1: and using as a basis to negotiate trade agreements with

269
00:19:02,160 --> 00:19:02,880
Speaker 1: other countries.

270
00:19:03,640 --> 00:19:07,040
Speaker 2: Of course, no one knows how the Supreme Court will rule,

271
00:19:07,520 --> 00:19:11,120
Speaker 2: but Bloomberg Intelligence has determined there is a sixty percent

272
00:19:11,320 --> 00:19:16,200
Speaker 2: chance that the justices will agree that the reciprocal tariffs

273
00:19:16,560 --> 00:19:20,720
Speaker 2: are illegal because the trade deficit isn't an emergency. But

274
00:19:20,840 --> 00:19:25,199
Speaker 2: we'll find that the fentanyl tariffs are lawful and reinstate them.

275
00:19:25,760 --> 00:19:29,560
Speaker 1: What do you think, Yeah, it's possible that the Supreme

276
00:19:29,560 --> 00:19:33,000
Speaker 1: Court could do something like that, And certainly the ultimate

277
00:19:33,040 --> 00:19:36,880
Speaker 1: outcome in terms of what the Supreme Court issues as

278
00:19:36,920 --> 00:19:40,080
Speaker 1: any remedy should it find the IPA terrifs or unlawful,

279
00:19:40,160 --> 00:19:44,000
Speaker 1: is wide open and difficult to predict. I think that

280
00:19:44,440 --> 00:19:48,040
Speaker 1: the initial statutory question, does AEPA allow the imposition of

281
00:19:48,119 --> 00:19:51,720
Speaker 1: tariffs is one question, and the Supreme Court could say

282
00:19:51,760 --> 00:19:56,879
Speaker 1: something like, yes, we think APA can permit tariffs. And

283
00:19:56,920 --> 00:19:59,600
Speaker 1: in fact, there's a lengthy discussion in the Federal Circuit

284
00:19:59,600 --> 00:20:03,280
Speaker 1: opinion about a prior court case called Yoshida, where an

285
00:20:03,280 --> 00:20:06,040
Speaker 1: appellate court had looked at exactly that issue under the

286
00:20:06,080 --> 00:20:09,400
Speaker 1: APA predecessor statute called the Trading with the Enemy Act.

287
00:20:09,880 --> 00:20:12,280
Speaker 1: So there's the question, does APO out tariffs? They could

288
00:20:12,280 --> 00:20:15,000
Speaker 1: answer that yes, it does, but they could also say

289
00:20:15,040 --> 00:20:18,639
Speaker 1: something to the effect of the executive orders issued here

290
00:20:18,680 --> 00:20:21,399
Speaker 1: in some manner go beyond what we think AYIPA was

291
00:20:21,440 --> 00:20:25,959
Speaker 1: intended to permit, especially if the Supreme Court thinks that's

292
00:20:26,160 --> 00:20:30,160
Speaker 1: wide open into discretionary and how the administration is adjusting

293
00:20:30,200 --> 00:20:32,560
Speaker 1: the tariffs. I'm not sure I would say that I

294
00:20:32,600 --> 00:20:34,959
Speaker 1: think that outcome is likely, but it does show you

295
00:20:35,040 --> 00:20:38,520
Speaker 1: that there are various steps of the analysis that the

296
00:20:38,520 --> 00:20:43,240
Speaker 1: Supreme Court could use to ultimately reach the outcoming conclusion

297
00:20:43,320 --> 00:20:43,800
Speaker 1: in the case.

298
00:20:44,320 --> 00:20:48,880
Speaker 2: No present before has tried to use AIPA to impose tariffs,

299
00:20:48,880 --> 00:20:52,879
Speaker 2: but has the Court addressed anything similar in the past.

300
00:20:53,520 --> 00:20:57,600
Speaker 1: Yeah, the Supreme Court has looked at AIPA before. For example,

301
00:20:57,800 --> 00:21:02,879
Speaker 1: there was a prior case involved the Iranian hostages that

302
00:21:02,920 --> 00:21:05,919
Speaker 1: were taken during the Iranian Revolution. The United States citizens

303
00:21:05,960 --> 00:21:10,840
Speaker 1: who were held hostage in Iran, and the President had

304
00:21:10,920 --> 00:21:15,359
Speaker 1: used AIPA as a basis to negotiate a process for

305
00:21:15,400 --> 00:21:18,719
Speaker 1: the hostages to be released, but also for the resolution

306
00:21:18,800 --> 00:21:22,560
Speaker 1: of claims against Iran that arose out of the revolution,

307
00:21:22,760 --> 00:21:26,719
Speaker 1: where's people's property had been seized or taken. And so

308
00:21:26,760 --> 00:21:29,600
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court was forced in that case to look

309
00:21:29,640 --> 00:21:35,159
Speaker 1: at whether AEPA allowed the president to essentially nullify court

310
00:21:35,240 --> 00:21:38,479
Speaker 1: cases that were ongoing and property that had been sees

311
00:21:38,600 --> 00:21:41,879
Speaker 1: pursued to those court cases. And in that case, the

312
00:21:41,880 --> 00:21:47,080
Speaker 1: Supreme Court said that AIPA is a broad grant of power.

313
00:21:47,200 --> 00:21:50,399
Speaker 1: It is designed to allow the president to negotiate and

314
00:21:50,440 --> 00:21:54,399
Speaker 1: thus would allow the president to freeze or exterminate claims

315
00:21:54,400 --> 00:21:58,600
Speaker 1: in US courts relating to the Iranian Revolution. I mean,

316
00:21:58,720 --> 00:22:01,320
Speaker 1: you know, whether that has a bearing on the issue

317
00:22:01,320 --> 00:22:04,480
Speaker 1: before the Court now relating to tariffs and the Trump

318
00:22:04,520 --> 00:22:07,919
Speaker 1: administration executive order is sort of unclear. It's it's not

319
00:22:08,080 --> 00:22:12,240
Speaker 1: hard to distinguish between the situation the Supreme Court looked

320
00:22:12,240 --> 00:22:14,639
Speaker 1: at there and the one before the Court today.

321
00:22:15,240 --> 00:22:19,240
Speaker 2: Could the Major Questions doctrine come into play because that

322
00:22:19,480 --> 00:22:23,600
Speaker 2: stopped Biden from his student loan program.

323
00:22:24,440 --> 00:22:29,600
Speaker 1: The Federal Circuit said, yes, that the Major Questions doctrine

324
00:22:29,680 --> 00:22:33,320
Speaker 1: is relevant here. They noted the vast what they called

325
00:22:33,400 --> 00:22:37,720
Speaker 1: economics and political significance of the case, and the Federal

326
00:22:37,720 --> 00:22:40,359
Speaker 1: Circuit found that countfuls for a narrower view of what

327
00:22:40,440 --> 00:22:46,120
Speaker 1: Congress intended in enacting AEPA, especially given that the President

328
00:22:46,160 --> 00:22:49,960
Speaker 1: had never previously used AIPA as a basis for the

329
00:22:50,000 --> 00:22:55,080
Speaker 1: imposition of tariff. Whether that is the path that the

330
00:22:55,119 --> 00:22:58,960
Speaker 1: Supreme Court ultimately uses to resolve the case very difficult

331
00:22:58,960 --> 00:23:02,199
Speaker 1: to predict. And at the Federal turget it did not

332
00:23:02,359 --> 00:23:06,639
Speaker 1: think the Major Questions doctrine prohibited the executive orders and

333
00:23:06,680 --> 00:23:10,240
Speaker 1: the imposition of tariffs here, both the reciprocal and the

334
00:23:10,560 --> 00:23:14,760
Speaker 1: fentanyl related tariffs. So you know, you can dig both sides.

335
00:23:14,880 --> 00:23:18,880
Speaker 1: Whether the Supreme Court will be persuaded that that doctrine

336
00:23:19,240 --> 00:23:21,200
Speaker 1: applies is unclear.

337
00:23:22,400 --> 00:23:25,040
Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue

338
00:23:25,080 --> 00:23:29,560
Speaker 2: this conversation with Dave Townsend. How is all this uncertainty

339
00:23:29,600 --> 00:23:34,080
Speaker 2: about the tariffs affecting companies? I'm June Grasso, and you're

340
00:23:34,119 --> 00:23:35,520
Speaker 2: listening to Bloomberg.

341
00:23:38,440 --> 00:23:42,280
Speaker 3: But some whack job put in a lawsuit. It went

342
00:23:42,320 --> 00:23:46,080
Speaker 3: before a very liberal court, and the liberal court ruled

343
00:23:46,320 --> 00:23:51,160
Speaker 3: who was eleven? They ruled seven to four, with one

344
00:23:51,200 --> 00:23:53,639
Speaker 3: of the most liberal of them all voting in our favor.

345
00:23:53,720 --> 00:23:57,480
Speaker 3: Because they're patriots. I think I give tremendous credit to

346
00:23:57,560 --> 00:23:59,920
Speaker 3: that judge. And now it's going to the Supreme Court.

347
00:24:00,119 --> 00:24:04,440
Speaker 3: We're going to be asking for early admittance. But some

348
00:24:04,800 --> 00:24:08,359
Speaker 3: whack job put in a lawsuit. It went before a

349
00:24:08,600 --> 00:24:12,600
Speaker 3: very liberal court, and the liberal court ruled was eleven.

350
00:24:13,440 --> 00:24:17,240
Speaker 3: They've ruled seven to four, with one of the most

351
00:24:17,359 --> 00:24:20,480
Speaker 3: liberal of them all voting in our favor because they're patriots.

352
00:24:20,760 --> 00:24:24,159
Speaker 3: I think I give tremendous credit to that judge. And

353
00:24:24,200 --> 00:24:25,879
Speaker 3: now it's going to the Supreme Court.

354
00:24:26,040 --> 00:24:28,480
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court has agreed to take up an appeal

355
00:24:28,520 --> 00:24:32,639
Speaker 2: from the Trump administration after lower courts found most of

356
00:24:32,680 --> 00:24:37,520
Speaker 2: his tariffs illegal. The case involves two sets of import taxes,

357
00:24:37,840 --> 00:24:41,920
Speaker 2: both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency.

358
00:24:42,440 --> 00:24:47,520
Speaker 2: The challenged taxes include Trump's April second Liberation Day tariffs,

359
00:24:47,880 --> 00:24:51,320
Speaker 2: which impose levies of ten to fifty percent on most

360
00:24:51,520 --> 00:24:55,479
Speaker 2: US imports, depending on the country they come from, and

361
00:24:55,600 --> 00:25:00,399
Speaker 2: also tariff's Trump imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China in

362
00:25:00,440 --> 00:25:04,679
Speaker 2: the name of addressing fentanyl trafficking. The cases were brought

363
00:25:04,720 --> 00:25:08,439
Speaker 2: by Democratic led states and a group of small businesses.

364
00:25:08,920 --> 00:25:12,639
Speaker 2: The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled

365
00:25:12,640 --> 00:25:16,920
Speaker 2: that Trump exceeded his authority by invoking an emergency law

366
00:25:17,080 --> 00:25:21,359
Speaker 2: AIPA to hit nations across the globe with steep tariffs,

367
00:25:21,880 --> 00:25:25,600
Speaker 2: upholding an earlier ruling by the Court of International Trade.

368
00:25:25,840 --> 00:25:29,760
Speaker 2: I've been talking to Dave Townshend of Dorsey and Whitney. Dave,

369
00:25:29,840 --> 00:25:33,119
Speaker 2: let's say that the Supreme Court rules against the tariffs

370
00:25:33,240 --> 00:25:36,479
Speaker 2: across the board. I mean, what happens then the government

371
00:25:36,560 --> 00:25:38,520
Speaker 2: has to refund money? How would it work?

372
00:25:39,080 --> 00:25:43,520
Speaker 1: There are several different avenues of relief that could come

373
00:25:43,560 --> 00:25:46,760
Speaker 1: out of the Supreme Court case here, and obviously we

374
00:25:46,760 --> 00:25:50,359
Speaker 1: don't know until the Supreme Court actually rules on it.

375
00:25:50,520 --> 00:25:53,439
Speaker 1: The Court of International Trade, the lower court at originally

376
00:25:53,760 --> 00:25:56,159
Speaker 1: issued relief at the all importers that had said if

377
00:25:56,160 --> 00:25:59,120
Speaker 1: it's illegal, as to the plaintiffs, that's the illegal as

378
00:25:59,119 --> 00:26:02,119
Speaker 1: to all and if directed the government to cease collecting

379
00:26:02,680 --> 00:26:08,120
Speaker 1: the reciprocal and sentinel related tariff under APA. The Federal

380
00:26:08,160 --> 00:26:11,040
Speaker 1: Circuit stepped in and paused the effect of that part

381
00:26:11,119 --> 00:26:15,080
Speaker 1: of this cit ruling, and in its August twenty ninth rolling,

382
00:26:15,160 --> 00:26:18,720
Speaker 1: the Federal Circuit agreed largely with the Court of International

383
00:26:18,720 --> 00:26:20,840
Speaker 1: Trade out of the outcome of the case, that is,

384
00:26:20,880 --> 00:26:24,600
Speaker 1: the IPA terriffs were held unlawful, but it again stayed

385
00:26:24,640 --> 00:26:28,960
Speaker 1: its decision and impact pending appeals at the Supreme Court.

386
00:26:29,920 --> 00:26:33,760
Speaker 1: So that's just a long way of saying the original

387
00:26:33,800 --> 00:26:36,040
Speaker 1: look at this from the Court of International Trades that

388
00:26:36,720 --> 00:26:39,760
Speaker 1: the relief should apply to everybody, should apply to all importers.

389
00:26:40,119 --> 00:26:43,679
Speaker 1: The Federal Circuit did note that this Court of International

390
00:26:43,680 --> 00:26:47,960
Speaker 1: Trades failed to look at whether such a nationwide remedy

391
00:26:48,040 --> 00:26:51,440
Speaker 1: was appropriate in light of a Supreme Court case recently issued.

392
00:26:52,119 --> 00:26:57,480
Speaker 1: That case was dealing with birthright citizenship. So the Federal

393
00:26:57,480 --> 00:27:00,520
Speaker 1: Circuit was saying to the Court of International Trade, you

394
00:27:00,560 --> 00:27:03,160
Speaker 1: have to look at this intervening case to see whether

395
00:27:03,200 --> 00:27:07,440
Speaker 1: it would be appropriate for a nationwide revenue. There are

396
00:27:08,119 --> 00:27:12,480
Speaker 1: under trade other avenues for relief here for companies looking

397
00:27:12,520 --> 00:27:14,960
Speaker 1: to recoup the revenue. One would be to bring their

398
00:27:14,960 --> 00:27:18,760
Speaker 1: own court case. Another would be to pursue protests against

399
00:27:18,800 --> 00:27:22,240
Speaker 1: the US Customs in due course as the import entries

400
00:27:22,720 --> 00:27:26,680
Speaker 1: go through the normal process of review, liquidation, and finalization

401
00:27:26,840 --> 00:27:29,919
Speaker 1: by US Customs. So we don't know. I mean, I

402
00:27:29,960 --> 00:27:34,399
Speaker 1: think ultimately there could be an administrative process established here

403
00:27:34,920 --> 00:27:37,479
Speaker 1: if there were a ruling against the United States that

404
00:27:37,520 --> 00:27:41,000
Speaker 1: would allow importers to come back and prove they were

405
00:27:41,040 --> 00:27:43,840
Speaker 1: owed money. It's also possible that there won't be a

406
00:27:43,880 --> 00:27:46,280
Speaker 1: process and that companies will just be forced to go

407
00:27:46,359 --> 00:27:49,160
Speaker 1: through the usual court or administrative processes.

408
00:27:49,640 --> 00:27:53,800
Speaker 2: Does the Supreme Court consider on any level the difficult

409
00:27:53,880 --> 00:27:56,679
Speaker 2: process of unwinding the tariffs?

410
00:27:57,440 --> 00:28:01,560
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think the Supreme Court has in other circumstances

411
00:28:01,800 --> 00:28:08,439
Speaker 1: that you know, it's concerned about accepting arguments in favor

412
00:28:08,480 --> 00:28:12,720
Speaker 1: of plaintiffs that would cause a painful unwinding process for

413
00:28:12,800 --> 00:28:16,359
Speaker 1: the US government. Whether that has much, if any of

414
00:28:16,359 --> 00:28:19,240
Speaker 1: an impact here is hard to say. I think that

415
00:28:19,880 --> 00:28:23,720
Speaker 1: you know, from my perspective as an attorney who who

416
00:28:23,800 --> 00:28:27,760
Speaker 1: advises US importers and is familiar with the importation process,

417
00:28:29,080 --> 00:28:33,720
Speaker 1: there is an automated process by which these AEPA teriffs

418
00:28:34,240 --> 00:28:39,520
Speaker 1: are imposed, and that automated process creates the data the

419
00:28:39,560 --> 00:28:42,480
Speaker 1: government needs to identify and refund the tariffs. So I'm

420
00:28:42,520 --> 00:28:46,959
Speaker 1: not ultimately convinced that the process of refunding the tariffs

421
00:28:47,000 --> 00:28:49,880
Speaker 1: would just be so hopelessly complicated that the government couldn't

422
00:28:49,920 --> 00:28:53,280
Speaker 1: do it. And I'll just give you one example of

423
00:28:53,360 --> 00:28:56,040
Speaker 1: why that is, the government in the ordinary course does

424
00:28:56,080 --> 00:28:59,520
Speaker 1: not liquidate import entries for roughly ten months until the

425
00:28:59,600 --> 00:29:02,640
Speaker 1: data endoration, and so you can go all the way

426
00:29:02,680 --> 00:29:06,320
Speaker 1: back to import entries in April when the reciprocal tariffs

427
00:29:06,360 --> 00:29:10,640
Speaker 1: are originally imposed, and those entries are not yet finalized

428
00:29:10,640 --> 00:29:14,800
Speaker 1: by customs. So there is sort of a way for

429
00:29:14,880 --> 00:29:18,240
Speaker 1: the government to easily track and then refund the duties

430
00:29:18,240 --> 00:29:20,360
Speaker 1: if they had to, although the scale of it would

431
00:29:20,400 --> 00:29:21,360
Speaker 1: be massive, obviously.

432
00:29:22,280 --> 00:29:25,120
Speaker 2: And so as far as you know businesses or importers

433
00:29:25,160 --> 00:29:29,680
Speaker 2: that you represent, what does this period of uncertainty until

434
00:29:29,720 --> 00:29:33,800
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court rules, what does it do to them?

435
00:29:34,200 --> 00:29:39,520
Speaker 1: In the meantime, everyone's paying the tariffs, and so I

436
00:29:39,560 --> 00:29:45,040
Speaker 1: think companies are still trying to assess what the likelihood

437
00:29:45,160 --> 00:29:48,600
Speaker 1: is that there could be refunds here I can tell

438
00:29:48,680 --> 00:29:52,800
Speaker 1: you that companies, and we've seen this in the news

439
00:29:52,840 --> 00:29:56,120
Speaker 1: and listeners have probably seen it in retail stores where

440
00:29:56,280 --> 00:30:00,360
Speaker 1: prices have gone up in certain cases, or contracts have

441
00:30:00,560 --> 00:30:04,720
Speaker 1: been revised in a way to permit companies to raise

442
00:30:04,760 --> 00:30:09,000
Speaker 1: prices as a result of the tariffs, and all of

443
00:30:09,040 --> 00:30:11,240
Speaker 1: that would all of a sudden be called into question

444
00:30:11,520 --> 00:30:16,360
Speaker 1: if the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the tariffs were illegal. Though,

445
00:30:17,560 --> 00:30:20,680
Speaker 1: whether there would be a rollback or reductions of price

446
00:30:21,240 --> 00:30:23,920
Speaker 1: as a result of the case and or because of

447
00:30:24,000 --> 00:30:27,520
Speaker 1: refunds received by importers. I think that would be different

448
00:30:27,560 --> 00:30:32,200
Speaker 1: potentially in different industries and in different market situations. But

449
00:30:32,840 --> 00:30:34,959
Speaker 1: you know, I can tell you that there have already

450
00:30:34,960 --> 00:30:37,920
Speaker 1: been adjustments, and so how quickly things would snap back

451
00:30:38,440 --> 00:30:41,000
Speaker 1: that would be something that businesses would have to I

452
00:30:41,040 --> 00:30:43,040
Speaker 1: think consider on a case by case basis.

453
00:30:43,760 --> 00:30:47,080
Speaker 2: Is there anything else that businesses are considering in light

454
00:30:47,160 --> 00:30:48,080
Speaker 2: of these tariffs.

455
00:30:49,320 --> 00:30:53,280
Speaker 1: Well, I think the way the tariffs were imposed, companies

456
00:30:53,360 --> 00:30:56,560
Speaker 1: could see them coming. They built up inventories in the

457
00:30:56,560 --> 00:31:00,400
Speaker 1: first quarter of the year. Those inventories that most been

458
00:31:00,480 --> 00:31:02,960
Speaker 1: drawn down in such a way that now they're having

459
00:31:03,320 --> 00:31:06,800
Speaker 1: and have been recently having to make tough decisions on

460
00:31:07,160 --> 00:31:10,800
Speaker 1: the pricing and whether they're passing on the terraffs. You know,

461
00:31:10,960 --> 00:31:15,800
Speaker 1: in terms of looking forward, I think companies are balancing

462
00:31:16,960 --> 00:31:21,600
Speaker 1: whether to wait and see whether the terrorifts are ultimately

463
00:31:21,680 --> 00:31:26,520
Speaker 1: upheld or whether they just take the action they feel

464
00:31:26,600 --> 00:31:27,560
Speaker 1: that it is appropriate.

465
00:31:27,600 --> 00:31:27,760
Speaker 2: Now.

466
00:31:27,800 --> 00:31:31,479
Speaker 1: I mean, I would say this about what the ultimate

467
00:31:31,480 --> 00:31:34,720
Speaker 1: impact of the Supreme Court case is. If they were

468
00:31:34,840 --> 00:31:38,640
Speaker 1: to find that the tariffs were unlawful and strike them down.

469
00:31:39,240 --> 00:31:41,720
Speaker 1: The Trump administration isn't just going to give up. There

470
00:31:41,720 --> 00:31:44,600
Speaker 1: will be a second, you know, a plan B so

471
00:31:44,720 --> 00:31:46,920
Speaker 1: to speak, that probably is already prepared that would be

472
00:31:46,920 --> 00:31:50,280
Speaker 1: imposed very quickly, is what I suspect. And so it's

473
00:31:50,320 --> 00:31:53,240
Speaker 1: not as though if the Supreme Court issues are ruling

474
00:31:53,280 --> 00:31:55,440
Speaker 1: against the United States, it's not as though the teriffts

475
00:31:55,440 --> 00:31:58,720
Speaker 1: will just be gone. There will be something coming down

476
00:31:58,960 --> 00:32:03,600
Speaker 1: the pipeline, probably fairly quickly to impose something similar.

477
00:32:04,000 --> 00:32:08,000
Speaker 2: Yeah, Administration officials have basically downplayed the impact of the

478
00:32:08,040 --> 00:32:11,320
Speaker 2: litigation and said that most of the terriffs can be

479
00:32:11,360 --> 00:32:14,640
Speaker 2: imposed by other legal avenues. I mean, what would that

480
00:32:14,720 --> 00:32:17,560
Speaker 2: be and why didn't they use it in the first place.

481
00:32:18,320 --> 00:32:21,320
Speaker 1: I think the administration chose to use IEPA because it

482
00:32:21,360 --> 00:32:24,200
Speaker 1: was they knew they could do it quickly and immediately,

483
00:32:24,280 --> 00:32:27,960
Speaker 1: and they wanted to begin the process of negotiating trade

484
00:32:27,960 --> 00:32:31,160
Speaker 1: agreements as fast as possible because it's a lengthy process

485
00:32:31,200 --> 00:32:35,640
Speaker 1: to negotiate trade agreements. There are a variety of other

486
00:32:36,280 --> 00:32:40,040
Speaker 1: legal authorities the administration could use if they needed to

487
00:32:40,080 --> 00:32:44,680
Speaker 1: replace the IEPA TIFFs. I would expect a combination of

488
00:32:45,000 --> 00:32:48,320
Speaker 1: authorities would be used. Something immediate that allows them to

489
00:32:48,360 --> 00:32:53,160
Speaker 1: impose tariffs right away, coupled with some combination of Section

490
00:32:53,200 --> 00:32:56,680
Speaker 1: two thirty two, which is national security related tariffs and

491
00:32:56,760 --> 00:32:59,600
Speaker 1: three oh one, what's their teriffs to address on SAT

492
00:32:59,680 --> 00:33:02,680
Speaker 1: trading practices like the kind of Trump administration imposed on

493
00:33:02,760 --> 00:33:06,320
Speaker 1: China in twenty eighteen, And so they would be able

494
00:33:06,320 --> 00:33:09,600
Speaker 1: to cobble together something that looks at least somewhat similar

495
00:33:09,600 --> 00:33:13,160
Speaker 1: to the current regime in terms of the ultimate impact

496
00:33:13,160 --> 00:33:14,760
Speaker 1: and the ultimate size of the tariffs.

497
00:33:15,680 --> 00:33:19,280
Speaker 2: If these tariffs are upheld, how much of a victory

498
00:33:19,320 --> 00:33:22,479
Speaker 2: would that be for Trump and how much would it

499
00:33:23,120 --> 00:33:25,680
Speaker 2: bolster presidential power?

500
00:33:27,000 --> 00:33:30,400
Speaker 1: It would be significant, no doubt, because what that would

501
00:33:30,400 --> 00:33:35,000
Speaker 1: do in the most immediate terms, Obviously, the executive orders

502
00:33:35,040 --> 00:33:37,240
Speaker 1: would remain the IPA teriffs would remain. I think the

503
00:33:37,240 --> 00:33:40,720
Speaker 1: Trump administration would be likely to view that as a

504
00:33:40,760 --> 00:33:45,440
Speaker 1: signal that they can use their AEPA authority to adjust

505
00:33:45,600 --> 00:33:48,480
Speaker 1: up or down as they see fit the tariff rates

506
00:33:48,520 --> 00:33:52,160
Speaker 1: for countries, and they would be emboldened to continue the

507
00:33:52,560 --> 00:33:56,640
Speaker 1: course of potentially raising tariffs on countries that take actions

508
00:33:56,640 --> 00:33:59,520
Speaker 1: they don't like and lowering them for countries that agree to,

509
00:34:00,080 --> 00:34:03,840
Speaker 1: you know, whatever trade concessions they're hoping to get out

510
00:34:03,880 --> 00:34:06,160
Speaker 1: of those countries. So I think that process would just

511
00:34:06,680 --> 00:34:09,720
Speaker 1: continue and it would be fully legal looking forward.

512
00:34:10,200 --> 00:34:13,600
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining me, Dave. That's David Townsend, a partner

513
00:34:13,640 --> 00:34:17,480
Speaker 2: in Dorsey and Whitney's International Trade Group. And that's it

514
00:34:17,560 --> 00:34:20,120
Speaker 2: for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you

515
00:34:20,160 --> 00:34:22,600
Speaker 2: can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg

516
00:34:22,719 --> 00:34:26,319
Speaker 2: Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

517
00:34:26,520 --> 00:34:31,560
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

518
00:34:31,960 --> 00:34:34,560
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

519
00:34:34,600 --> 00:34:38,480
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm Jim Grosso,

520
00:34:38,640 --> 00:34:40,239
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg