Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. Our covera Joe of
Speaker 1: the Trump terariff decision continues with a closer look at
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court's majority opinion, which zeroed in on what
Speaker 1: it called a unilateral and transformative expansion of the president's authority.
Speaker 1: Writing for the Plurality, Chief Justice John Roberts said, quote
Speaker 1: that in iipa's half century of existence, no president has
Speaker 1: invoked the statute to impose any teriffts, let alone tariffts
Speaker 1: of this magnitude, and that the lack of historical president,
Speaker 1: coupled with the breadth of authority that the president claimed,
Speaker 1: suggested that the teriffs extended beyond his legitimate reach. That
Speaker 1: issue a core part of the three lawsuits that led
Speaker 1: to this case, including the lawsuit pressed by twelve Democratic
Speaker 1: state attorneys general, including from California's Rob Bonta. He joins
Speaker 1: us right now to talk a little bit more about
Speaker 1: this decision. All right, First, what was your initial reaction
Speaker 1: at ten am of Eastern time, that is, when you
Speaker 1: heard about the decision?
Speaker 2: Not surprising what I expect, having been in the courtroom
Speaker 2: at the US Supreme Court for the oral argument and
Speaker 2: very affirming and Most of all, I feel that it's
Speaker 2: an important amount of relief that's being delivered for the
Speaker 2: American people, including Californians, for consumers who are paying higher prices,
Speaker 2: for workers who've lost their jobs, for businesses, including small
Speaker 2: mom and pops who have struggled, some have shuddered their
Speaker 2: businesses never to open again.
Speaker 3: So this is.
Speaker 2: Important relief delivered to them. And it calls out trumpson
Speaker 2: lawfulness for what it is. He literally acted illegally to
Speaker 2: raise prices for the American people after saying that he
Speaker 2: was going to lower prices on day one. It was
Speaker 2: a lie his statement, and it was improper and inappropriate.
Speaker 2: What he has done. He owes many businesses a refund
Speaker 2: and pay up.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm curious about that. I mean, your governor, the
Speaker 1: California governor, Gavin Newsom has already weighed in on the
Speaker 1: one hundred and seventy plus billion dollars that have been
Speaker 1: collected from consumers and companies. Do you think there's any
Speaker 1: real legitimate chance that those companies, those consumers are actually
Speaker 1: going to see a refund of any portion of that.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, you do. And the opinion could have said that
Speaker 2: we are making a decision that is prospective only that
Speaker 2: going forward, Trump can no longer use these unlawful tariffs.
Speaker 2: They didn't say that, which makes it very clear that
Speaker 2: retro active, retrospective relief is on the table, and there's
Speaker 2: a pathway to do this. You go to the Court
Speaker 2: of International Trade if you're a business and importer that
Speaker 2: had to pay the unlawful tariffs, and you seek a
Speaker 2: refund through what's called the refund to action. And typically
Speaker 2: generally and it would be fair and just here if
Speaker 2: your money is unlawfully withheld from you, if you had
Speaker 2: to pay something based on an unlawful tariff, you should
Speaker 2: get interest on it. So I think you're going to
Speaker 2: see a lot of refund actions being brought against the
Speaker 2: Trump administration for these unlawful tariffs that have been struck down.
Speaker 3: Well, is that something that California as a state plans
Speaker 3: to do. I mean, you know, as we go through
Speaker 3: this process when it comes to demanding refunds, I mean,
Speaker 3: is that action that California would.
Speaker 2: Take very potentially, Yes, you know, we had a case
Speaker 2: in the North District of California that we are now
Speaker 2: will be transferred to or commenced in the Court of
Speaker 2: International Trade. Which the US Supreme Court today said is
Speaker 2: the appropriate court, and that's where we could seek a
Speaker 2: refund action for California, for the state of California, not
Speaker 2: the businesses, not the who paid the unlawful tariff. So
Speaker 2: to the extent that California has been hurt by these tariffs,
Speaker 2: had to pay higher prices because of these tariffs. Yes,
Speaker 2: we could pursue a refund action in the Court of
Speaker 2: International Trade, and we're discussing all of our options now.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 3: We will certainly keep an eye out there for any action.
Speaker 3: I do want to ask about the statement that you
Speaker 3: issued following the Supreme Court decision. You wrote that the
Speaker 3: Trump administration's a legal and chaotic terraf regime has come
Speaker 3: to an end. Of course, in the hours since, we've
Speaker 3: heard from the President directly saying that, you know, he
Speaker 3: still plans to pursue tariffs. It's just AIPA that was
Speaker 3: ruled against here today. And with that in mind, I mean,
Speaker 3: how do you see this evolving? You think about all
Speaker 3: the different sections that he can tap, it seems like
Speaker 3: when it comes to the terriff regime, it's actually far
Speaker 3: from over.
Speaker 2: I think he'll try again, and you know, in some
Speaker 2: of his statements today were very remarkable, almost claiming victory
Speaker 2: in the face of very clear defeat. I mean, this
Speaker 2: is an embarrassing loss in front of the US Supreme
Speaker 2: Court on his you know, key policy proposal of his administration.
Speaker 2: It was unlawful and it was not even close. It
Speaker 2: was clearly unlawful, a six' three loss in front of THE. U.
Speaker 2: S Supreme. Court and he very may well try to
Speaker 2: implement other tariffs through other. Pathways those were always available to.
Speaker 2: Him to be, clear there's prerequisites for those tariffs to be,
Speaker 2: implemented there's limits on those, tariffs there's limits in duration
Speaker 2: in a. Mouth so we'll see what he, does and we'll.
Speaker 2: Assess we've brought fifty eight lawsuits in less than fifty
Speaker 2: eight weeks against A trump administration for repeated illegal, conduct
Speaker 2: and so we will assess whether any of his actions
Speaker 2: going forward in the tariff's space or lawful or. Not
Speaker 2: and if he breaks the lag in and Hurts california,
Speaker 2: again we'll take him to.
Speaker 1: Court, Well i'm just, sorry just real, quickly, Though. ROB i,
Speaker 1: mean looking at the dissenting, opinions and particularly The kavanaugh
Speaker 1: opinion who explicitly in his words said the president did
Speaker 1: have the. Authority does that become the basis for The
Speaker 1: trump administration to move forward with something even under the
Speaker 1: construct of A.
Speaker 2: Epa, WELL apa is off the, table so he can
Speaker 2: longer USE aiba to impost tariffs he. Tried he. Lost
Speaker 2: THE apa doesn't mention the word tariffs has never been
Speaker 2: used in nearly fifty years of its existence to impost.
Speaker 2: Tariffs but, yeah The kavanaugh descent did sort of set
Speaker 2: forth a blueprint That trump might want to pursue in
Speaker 2: terms of other statutes that do provide the opportunity for
Speaker 2: him potentially to implement. Terrorists but the POINT i was,
Speaker 2: making and the majority makes us, too is that those
Speaker 2: other statutes don't give full discretion to im implement and
Speaker 2: impose all the tariffs that he tried to impose UNDER,
Speaker 2: apa and he tried to impose tariffs against every single
Speaker 2: one of our trade partners under A. Epa those other
Speaker 2: statutes have, Limits they have, Prerequisites they have limits in,
Speaker 2: duration limits in. Amount so he may take action using
Speaker 2: those other, statutes but he will be. Limited all, right have.
Speaker 3: To leave it. There really appreciate your. Time that Is
Speaker 3: California Attorney General Rob bonta