In my opinion, a lot of this is theater for mockingbird media talking points. Lock in headlines that say “Judge rules against Trump in xxxxx“. I also note they often use exactly that, not President Trump, showing either their clear lack of respect for the office or simple lack of intelligence, or both.

I’d expect the theater to continue.

“Like I said last night…. Stay Calm. Be angry, but stay calm and frosty. Good, smart people are rapid firing legal analysis, supportive documents and strong ‘standing’ strategic information into the pipeline to assist.”

Reminds me of the following:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains rest lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

The Roberts SCOTUS should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this obvious judicial coup to continue unabated for this long!

Sir, I have learned- after reading and absorbing your wisdom over the years – to pause…not panic… and wait for your analysis and not panic right away.
Thank you Sundance! You are my calm in the middle of the storm.

This looks like a new judge, not part of the trade court, did the same thing to stop the tariffs.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/05/breaking-obama-judge-rules-trumps-tariffs-are-unlawful/

Does the administration have to appeal this too?

This is getting ridiculous.

https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1928133210069688813

Just wondering. Do our federal tax dollars pay for all this ridiculous crap? What a waste of time and money.

I like Trumps method to the madness. He is just piling it on the courts (and Roberts in particular). He isn’t stopping and slinking off with tail between legs. He is overloading the courts (and Roberts) until they become caricatures of themselves. Basically becoming laughing stocks and so obvious the judicial overreach. I’m sure Roberts wishes Trump would just stop….but Trump isn’t. He is forcing Roberts to play the game. Some judicial TROs are ridiculous to even the most lefty of observers. Roberts is looking continually silly.

𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐀𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐊𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐧 𝐇𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐬 “𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭” 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞’𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 “𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐬”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-advisor-hassett-is-confident-tariffs-will-prevail-despite-judges-ruling/ar-AA1FIt2A

Let us continue to pray for the Trump legal team to win this battle of wits and crush the satanic attack on justice and truth.

The president’s power should not turn on whether his tariffs have a negative effect on particular companies because of the business models they have at a particular point in time. Business models come and go, and the president’s power waxes and wanes with them?

His power is derived from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, in which Congress delegated parts of its tariff power to the president. Other presidents have used in the past against economic “threats, ” some of which were likely less threatening than the current world situation.

The president just has to find an unusual and extraordinary threat outside the US, according to the Act, and he can regulate imports.

The leftists clown ‘judges’ need to be stopped – while it’s comforting to see this ruling, we all know they will keep trying to stop the President’s (and our) agenda. There must be some way charges can be filed against them. Give them taste of their own medicine!

Any normal neutral person would think by now the Supreme Court would be freaking embarrassed at how inept they appear to the average citizen.

We are just normal people and even we see SCOTUS intentionally is trying keep their head buried in the sand. John Roberts were talking to you. You would think by now he’d be embarrassed.

Congress delegated significant tariff-related powers to the executive branch (the President) through legislation, such as the Trade Act of 1974 and the Tariff Act of 1930.

These laws allow the President to impose or adjust tariffs under specific circumstances, like national security (e.g., Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962) OR TRADE NEGOTIATIONS.

While Congress retains the ultimate authority to regulate foreign commerce and can override or modify these delegations, it is NOT within the Judiciary’s purview to constrain the authority granted by Congress to the President.

The Corp State struck down.

Rudolph Contreras, Peter Strzok’s old buddy, emerges again against President Trump.

BREAKING: Obama Judge Rules Trump’s Tariffs Are Unlawful

A federal judge on Thursday issued a preliminary injunction and ruled President Trump’s tariffs are unlawful under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
US District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee said Trump’s tariffs are “unlawful.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/05/breaking-obama-judge-rules-trumps-tariffs-are-unlawful/
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Strzok-Page texts reveal personal relationship between FBI official and judge recused from Flynn case

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/strzok-page-texts-reveal-personal-relationship-between-fbi-official-and-judge-recused-from-flynn-case

The federal judge who presided over former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s case last year before mysteriously being recused had a personal relationship with anti-Trump FBI official Peter Strzok, according to text mesages obtained and reviewed by Fox News.
The revelations about U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras are found in a new batch of text messages between Strzok and his FBI paramour, Lisa Page.
Contreras was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in 2016, a topic of conversation between Strzok and Page.

“Rudy is on the FISC! Did you know that?” Page texted Strzok on July 25, 2016. “Just appointed two months ago.”
“I did,” Strzok replied. “We talked about it before and after. I need to get together with him.”

No weapon formed against you shall prosper,
And every tongue which rises against you in judgment
You shall condemn.
This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord,
And their righteousness is from Me,”
Says the Lord

Isaiah 54:17

It looks to me that there is a treasonous conspiracy in the judiciary to obstruct Trumps operation of the government. Perhaps these judges should be investigated.

Of course the tariffs remain. I would think, since TRILLIONS are at stake, the opponent would be smarter than a 5th grader.

Funny how even the MOST leftist of the lefty Federal judges will usually suspend their rulings for a least a few days, when they know that the judgment is likely to be appealed, when the impact of such a ruling could have a widespread, damaging impact to those effected one way or the other.

These trade judges? NOOooo way. Immediate effect, immediate impact, maximum publicity around the world, whipsawing the markets, because … they’re all about the political moment, their ego, and their reputation in the leftist world. Not about the law (much less, the US Constitution, which most think should be repealed, abolished, rewritten by wokesters, etc).

“If, for instance, the president is required to do any act, he is not only authorized, but required, to decide for himself, whether, consistently with his constitutional duties, he can do the act.”
—Joseph Story (1833)

🚨 JUST IN: Scott Bessent FLAMES judges for getting involved and trying to strike down Trump’s tariffs.

He spells it out perfectly.

“It seems highly inappropriate for the judiciary to weigh in here when the Senate had the opportunity to override the president and didn’t.”

“So, in terms of separation of powers, the Senate has chosen not to exercise their powers, and the president absolutely has the right to set the trade agenda for the U.S.”

Think of a New York globalist oligarch. He needed the market to jump so he could sell some holdings for a good profit. Throw a few thousand dollars at these crooked judges and get them to pronounce their impotent little ruling, cause the market to jump, sell-sell-sell, and collect millions in profits.

Which oligarch was it?

I have been in court with several of these judges at this very court. You can’t count on what they will do. But they are not afraid to weild their power.

The refund of tariffs paid is not so rediculous. My small business is one of many you never hear about who had purchased specialty machinery from Germany because there aren’t any U.S. producers to buy them from. We negotiated contracts with our clients many months ago, before any tariffs were in place. When the equipment was arrived at the port, we had to pay a 10% import tax, but our buyers didn’t have to pay the tax because the price was fixed under a contract agreed to before the import tax was imposed. We are caught in the crossfire so to speak and it is fair to refund our tax.

I have been before the Federal Circuit judges several times. This order is pretty routine for them in connection with anyone seeking an administrative stay pending the resolution of the motion to stay, and the appeal itself. You can’t read anything into it on substance. They will happily give the admin stay but then reject the Rule 8 stay. The judges tend to be smarter on average (Biden appointees mixed; Cunningham was never perceived as a brilliant legal mind but has a chem engineering degree, and came out of connected clerkships and law firms in the field (Kirkland and Perkins Coie) and added black/female “diversity” while Stark was a top Delaware district court judge who is extremely smart and no-nonsense). Most of their appellate docket is patent cases, but they get ITC, tax, and Veteran’s appeals; the ITC angle is why it goes to them. It will, however, be interesting if there is a close split on either the panel/court with Judge Pauline Newman not participating. She and Chief Judge Moore have been involved in a long-running spat over Newman’s ability to serve, with Moore arguing incapacity, and Newman saying she is totally fine. (Newman has always been extremely arrogant; so is Moore; but that court has been Newman’s life, she was on it when it came into being in 1982). Lawsuits on Newman’s removal have been pending, etc. Hot mess. Nevertheless, I suspect that on the whole the Fed. Cir. will be looking for clear tests to apply, and follow precedent, at least more than most, so not the worst place for Trump to be, all things considered.

The bit about NBC claiming the order barred future chages in the tariffs is a misreading.
That passage refers to yesterday’s order by the CIT, not today’s stay.

Don’t know how the president’s legal team pulled off having 2 R’s vs 1 D on the 3-Judge panel to stay the ruling but good for them. Then again we have seen the “random” selection process “allow” a minor early victory by having 2 R’s vs 1 D, only to have the final ruling go the other way.

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is stacked AGAINST President Trump’s Team.

Chief Justice Roberts supervises this court.
There are 12 ACTIVE Judges:
2 BIDEN
5 OBAMA
1 CLINTON
1 REAGAN
3 Bush I + Bush II

There are currently 7 x “Part Time” Senior Judges who could also be assigned to the case.
2 CLINTON
1 OBAMA
1 REAGAN
3 BUSH I

Note: the 3-Judge Federal District Panel included a Republican “Part time” Senior Judge who tipped the balance, to stay the original ruling by the democrat dominated 3-Judge Panel of the CIT.

It will depend on the Roulette Wheel of fate as to the balance of the make-up of the final hearing before the Federal Circuit.

The next step from this court is Supreme Court, unless Chief Justice Roberts exercises his supervisory authority to force the case BACK to the Court of International Trade for “THE EXERCISE OF THE FULL PROCESS”, having the ENTIRE Panel of the Court of International Trade Rule before the entire Federal District Court hears the case.

Reminder: The composition of the Court of International Trade:
4 OBAMA
2 BIDEN
3 TRUMP

Interstingly there was a ruling today by SCOTUS a rare unamious decision
8-0 reigning in judges who rule crazy stuff over environment and climate change
to the effect they can;t ask or rule for things or reports or such that have noithing to
do with the actual case at hand.. they have to give the agency leeway withing reasonable
boundaries.. Like they can;t ask for climate reports for impacts on things that have
nothing to do witht the actual project at hand. that delays projects.

So maybe this is a precursor to thier ruling on these crazy judges Trump asked
them to rule on.

MAGA Wolverines!!!

I have seen a list of the states Attorney Generals who brought this case, but I have NOT SEEN A LIST OF “the handful of domestic businesses” WHO DID!

I want a list of every one of these companies! I will boycott them, and we all need to! Give us a list! They need to pay for what they are doing!

A quite germane piece written at the start of April…covering how the head of the executive was given the power to use tariffs, what the Supreme Court precedence says, and the specifics of the laws which grant him said power.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-congress-delegates-its-tariff-powers-to-the-president

Going to do put the majority of the piece here due to the importance of the subject and to enable highlighting bits and (embedding comments). The article was written on April 2, 2025 by Scott Bomboy.

Over time, as Congress gave the president expanded powers on its behalf to enact tariff policies, opponents to several tariffs laws argued the statutes were an unconstitutional congressional delegation of authority to the president. Known as the non-delegation doctrine, the question of how much of its authority Congress can grant to the president and the judiciary goes back to the time of Chief Justice John Marshall.
In Wayman v. Southard (1825), Marshall noted that Congress could not delegate powers “that are strictly and exclusively legislative.” But Congress had the ability to grant other powers as needed.

“The difference between the departments undoubtedly is that the legislature makes, the executive executes, and the judiciary construes the law; but the maker of the law may commit something to the discretion of the other departments, and the precise boundary of this power is a subject of delicate and difficult inquiry, into which a court will not enter unnecessarily,” Marshall concluded.

The Court defined these boundaries regarding tariffs in a landmark decision from 1892, Field v. Clark. Marshall Field & Co. objected to tariffs placed on sugar, molasses, coffee, tea, and hides under the Tariff Act of 1890, which directed the president to place such levies when other nations used tariffs the president “may deem to be reciprocally unequal and unreasonable.” Marshall Field claimed Congress had improperly granted legislative powers to the president.

In his majority opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan said the president was acting in his executive role executing a congressional policy. “What the president was required to do was simply in execution of the act of Congress. It was not the making of law. He was the mere agent of the lawmaking department to ascertain and declare the event upon which its expressed will was to take effect.”

Congress increasingly took a less active role in levying tariffs directly, especially after the 16th Amendment’s ratification in 1913 led to a federal income tax that replaced tariffs as a main source of federal government revenue. In 1934, Congress passed the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, which gave President Franklin Roosevelt the ability to change tariffs rates by 50% and negotiate bilateral trade agreements without additional approval from Congress.

Since then, the president has mostly controlled and executed tariffs policies as defined by Congress.

Laws That Allow the President to Impose Tariffs
——————————————
According to the Congressional Research Service, there are six statutory provisions currently in place that control how the president and the executive branch can use tariffs. Three provisions require federal agency investigations before a tariff can be imposed. The other provisions do not require an investigation before actions are taken.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 has been used by the first and second Trump administrations for steel and aluminum imports. It authorizes the president to ask the Secretary of Commerce to determine if goods are being imported in manner that threatens national security (remember the deference SCOTUS gives to the executive branch regarding national security matters). The secretary then reports back to the president if he has any affirmative findings. “Section 232 does not require the President to follow the Secretary’s recommendations but permits him to take alternative actions or no action,” the CRS says. Under Section 232, there is no maximum time limit on the president’s tariff actions.

Another provision that requires an investigation is Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974. The act allows the president to impose tariffs if the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) finds that an import surge is threatening a U.S. domestic industry. If the ITC makes an affirmative determination, the president can take action accordingly, including placing tariffs. Tariffs imposed under Section 201 are not meant to be permanent, and the actions have a limit of four to eight years.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to authorize tariffs on foreign countries that restrict U.S. commerce in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable,” or “discriminatory” ways (that would be the EU and China among others). If the USTR confirms such behavior after an investigation, the president has the discretion to allow the USTR to impose tariffs for at least four years.

Among the three provisions that allow the president to act on his own to impose tariffs without an investigation, only one has ever been used: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. The act allows the president to declare an emergency under the National Emergency Act (NEA) and then use his extensive economic powers to regulate or prohibit imports.

The CRS says that President Trump was the first chief executive to use this act in February 2025, when he announced tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico. The emergency stated by the president can be terminated at this request, or by a joint resolution of Congress (with Congress having ‘veto’ power, it effectively cuts the legs from any argument about Congress).

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to enact temporary tariffs to address “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” or certain other situations that present “fundamental international payments problems; 

and

Section 338 of Tariff Act of 1930, which authorizes the president to enact “tariffs on articles produced by, or imported on the vessels of, foreign countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce in certain ways,” have not yet been used.

Ultimately, Congress can limit or expand the presidential tariffs powers through legislation, but the CRS concludes that based on precedents dating back to the time of Chief Justice Marshall, judicial precedent “has given the President broad latitude to exercise his tariff authorities.”

Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948):

Accordingly, we hold that full responsibility for the just exercise of this great power may validly be left where the Congress has constitutionally placed it — on the President of the United States. The Founders, in their wisdom, made him not only the Commander in Chief, but also the guiding organ in the conduct of our foreign affairs. He who was entrusted with such vast powers in relation to the outside world was also entrusted by Congress, almost throughout the whole life of the nation, with the disposition of alien enemies during a state of war. Such a page of history is worth more than a volume of rhetoric.

Checks and balances, and I wonder: The president (executive) checks the legislature (Congress) through its veto power. The judiciary (courts) check the executive (president) through its legal/ruling system. But who actually checks the judiciary? Lower courts are checked by higher courts. Higher courts are checked by SCOTUS. It seems they are checking themselves…????

Tik toc goes the clock as President Trump’s second term is being tied up in one court after another. The communists, I refuse to call them democrats, are hoping that the CHEAT/COUP can be performed once again in November 2026 and Trump will be a lame duck facing impeachment for 40th time. Yea yea, 40th time is an overstatement to make a point.

A disgrace that the Illinois government is one of the plaintiffs. Illinois needs to get its act together and focus on bringing back and new private sector industries, lowering taxes, have election integrity, remove the Safety Act(it is pro criminal rights) and stop being a sanctuary state!

Good news!