Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

moonshinegnomie

(3,957 posts)
Sat Feb 21, 2026, 04:26 PM 2 hrs ago

the orange pedos 15% tariffs arent legal either

from the lawyer that got hi first ones thrown out


?s=20



basically there the law hes using allows him to implement them if there is a balance of payments deficit. which doesnt exist since we went to floating currencies in the 70's. the morons lawyers evern argued that the law didnt apply in his case at teh supreme court

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
the orange pedos 15% tariffs arent legal either (Original Post) moonshinegnomie 2 hrs ago OP
What's next, another year long case to throw out the 15% tariffs? bucolic_frolic 2 hrs ago #1
my guess is the court will toss them in a hurry since even his own lawyers say they arent applicable moonshinegnomie 2 hrs ago #2
They will expire before a final court ruling is issued Fiendish Thingy 2 hrs ago #3
Why Trump's Section 122 Tariffs Are Illegal LetMyPeopleVote 1 hr ago #4
NAH, NAH, NAH,NAH! No one can stop me says the orange headed King! n/t Jacson6 57 min ago #5

bucolic_frolic

(54,673 posts)
1. What's next, another year long case to throw out the 15% tariffs?
Sat Feb 21, 2026, 04:31 PM
2 hrs ago

This is just running out the clock.

Where is all that tariff money going? Trump is stuck to the idea like glue.

moonshinegnomie

(3,957 posts)
2. my guess is the court will toss them in a hurry since even his own lawyers say they arent applicable
Sat Feb 21, 2026, 04:34 PM
2 hrs ago

Fiendish Thingy

(22,623 posts)
3. They will expire before a final court ruling is issued
Sat Feb 21, 2026, 04:41 PM
2 hrs ago

Those sec. 122 Tariffs are only good for 150 days, and it’s unlikely there would be a final ruling within that time, there will likely be preliminary rulings and stays pending appeals. 150 days should be enough time to further damage the economy, destroy more small businesses, and add more seats to the Blue Tsunami coming in November.

The question is, once a final ruling on whether these current Sec 122 tariffs are legal comes down, will it prevent Trump from issuing future 150 day tariffs?

In the meantime, Trumpy Whack-a-Mole continues…

LetMyPeopleVote

(177,634 posts)
4. Why Trump's Section 122 Tariffs Are Illegal
Sat Feb 21, 2026, 05:53 PM
1 hr ago

trump's new replacement tariffs are illegal. These tariffs can only be used when there is a balance-of-payments deficit which is very different from a balance of trade deficit. Since the US is no longer on a currency fixed exchange rate there have not been any balance of payment deficits for a couple of decades. These tariffs will be challenged and trump will lose again

Fascinating National Review post on Trump's latest Tariff gambit. Archive link here (it's pay walled, please don't give them money lol)

archive.is/r4Xdf

Rude Law Dog (@esghound.com) 2026-02-21T19:01:57.437Z

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trumps-section-122-tariffs-are-illegal/

In Section 122, Congress endowed the president with narrow, temporary authority to impose tariffs “to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” (emphasis added). What Trump is complaining about — something he insists is a crisis but is not — is the balance of trade, not of payments. The United States does not have an overall balance of payments deficit, much less a large and serious one.

A trade deficit between the U.S. and a foreign nation occurs, mainly in connection with goods (which is just one aspect of international commerce), when imports are greater than exports. This is not really a problem for a variety of reasons — e.g., a trade deficit results in an investment surplus, the U.S. is a major services economy and often runs exported services surpluses that mitigate the imports deficit in goods, etc.

The balance of payments is a broader concept than the balance of trade. It accounts for all the economic transactions that take place between the United States and the rest of the world. Even without getting into every kind of transaction that entails, suffice it to say that foreign investment in the United States, coupled with the advantages our nation accrues because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency, more than make up for the longstanding trade deficit in goods.

Our overall payments are in balance. There is no crisis.

It’s vital to understand why Section 122 was enacted. There was a financial crisis in the late 60s and early 70s under the Bretton Woods system, when the dollar was tied to gold. Foreign countries that held dollar reserves could exchange them for gold at a fixed rate. Meanwhile, our government was spending at a high clip due to the Vietnam War and Great Society programs. This and the obligation to pay out gold put enormous pressure on the dollar. In response, in 1971, President Nixon severed the dollar’s tie to gold and — as several justices recounted in Friday’s Learning Resources opinions — imposed a temporary 10 percent import surcharge (a tariff) to stabilize the economy......

There is no rationale under Section 122 to impose tariffs. Because President Trump has no unilateral authority to order tariffs, he must meet the preconditions of Section 122 to justify levying them. He cannot. Not even close.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»the orange pedos 15% tari...