← Bloomberg Businessweek
Loading summary
Transcript81 lines
- [00:01]
Dupixent Advertiser
Having uncontrolled eosinophilic esophagitis or EOE can mean you're stuck in many ways, like cutting your food into tiny pieces
- [00:11]
Bloomberg News Anchor
or
- [00:12]
Dupixent Advertiser
stuck chewing food for a long time. Dupixent Dupilumab, a prescription medicine for patients one year and older weighing at least 33 pounds, can help with that. It's a breakthrough treatment that can reduce inflammation in the esophagus and improve swallowing. Or you can get with that. How about this? Dupixent is not a steroid. It proactively treats EOE so you can get ahead of it. Severe allergic reactions, including skin reactions, can occur. Get help right away if you have trouble breathing or wheezing or swelling of your face, mouth, tongue or throat. Tell your doctor of new or worsening joint aches and pain, or a parasitic infection or asthma. Don't change or stop other treatments without talking to your doctor. Feeling stuck with the oe? Start treating with Dupixent. Talk to your gastroenterologist or allergist today about Dupixent. Learn more at dupixent.com or call 1-844-dupix sound familiar? mattress Firm, we understand there are many problems that can keep you up at night, like snoring, aches and pains or sleeping hot. Our sleep experts have the unrivaled know how to match you with a mattress that can help.
- [01:16]
Scarlet Fu
And now at Mattress Firm, save up
- [01:18]
Dupixent Advertiser
to $700 plus get a free adjustable base with select Sealy mattresses for the great sleep you deserve, visit Mattress Firm. We make sleep easy. Restrictions apply. See store or website for details. Running a business is hard enough. Don't make it harder with a dozen apps that don't talk to each other. One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. That's software overload. Odoo is the all in one platform that replaces them all. CRM, Accounting, Inventory, E Commerce, hr. Fully integrated, easy to use and built to grow with your business. Thousands have already made the switch. Why not you try Odoo for free@odoo.com that's odoo.com
- [02:03]
Paul Sweeney
Bloomberg Audio Studios podcasts Radio
- [02:07]
June Grasso
News
- [02:10]
Bloomberg News Anchor
this is a breaking news update from Bloomberg.
- [02:14]
Dupixent Advertiser
Instant reaction and analysis from our 3,000 journalists and analysts around the world.
- [02:20]
Scarlet Fu
US Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs, undercutting his signature economic policy and delivering his biggest legal defeat since he returned to the White House. Tyler Kendall, Bloomberg News White House correspondent, joins us here. Washington correspondent Tyler Give us the latest on what we know about this Supreme Court ruling.
- [02:37]
Tyler Kendall
So it appears that the court, in a 6, 3 decision, struck down President Trump's tariffs, those broad based ones that have to do with ia. The International Emergency Economic Powers act president put forward IPA tariffs on two accounts. One was those fentanyl related tariffs related to Canada, Mexico and in part on China. And then the other were the more broad based ones where he cited persistent trade imbalances. Now, we're still going through this cases coming in in real time right now to figure out the two questions that were in front of the court. One was, does President Trump actually have the authority to invoke IPA to impose tariffs? Because this has never been done before. This is typically a federal authority that is used to invoke sanctions. So the question here is whether or not he circumvented Congress. The other question was about whether or not he actually invoked AIPA correctly. If he's able to, by declaring these national emergencies, did those national emergencies related to fentanyl, related to these trade imbalances, reach a legal standard of what is known as an unusual and extraordinary threat, that the president would have this authority to impose a tariff, a import, a regulation of commerce, in this way to achieve his objections, his objectives. We're still reading through this, but it appears that we have one at least. Dissenting opinion was from Kavanaugh, of course, address Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed, under, nominated under President Trump, who says, quote, the court says nothing today about whether and if so, how the government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process to be a mess, as was acknowledged at oral argument. So that's going to be the entire next phase of this.
- [04:28]
Paul Sweeney
It doesn't seem to matter to investors, at least for the moment. You look at the S&P 500, it did shoot up. It's come back a little bit. But what's notable here, Paul, is that the best performing group among 24 groups is a consumer durable and apparels group, Lululemon, for instance, jumping about 5% right at the open. It's paired some of that advance to 2.4% Lululemon, along with other companies presumably hurt by this, by these tariffs, would benefit therefore with the removal of these tariffs, although as Tyler made clear, it's not clear whether there would be a refund or how that would even be put together.
- [05:03]
Scarlet Fu
Yeah, and I'm just kind of reading some of the Bloomberg headlines. Supreme Court does not address eligibility for tariff refunds. And Bloomberg News also reporting that hundreds of tariff refund lawsuits pending in US Trade Court. So, Tyler, this seems like that's where the rubber meets the road. To the extent that anybody's going to try to get a tariff relief or tariff refunds, it's not going to be easy, at least at this stage.
- [05:27]
Tyler Kendall
Well, if you want to hear a pretty startling statistic, IPA tariffs have been collected from more than 3001000 importers. And every company that wants a refund would need a distinct claim in court. Perhaps we'll likely see a class action lawsuit that could maybe put this a little bit more broad based. But when we're looking at just the massive amount of revenue that was raised by these IPA tariffs alone, of course the Trump administration has other tariff authorities that are already in place. Section 232 related to national security. For example, those IPA broad based tariffs brought in last year more than $134 billion for the US government. So it's going to be a complicated process. It likely would leave the question of refunds to a lower court, most likely the Court of International Trade, which first took up this case. There's a few different wonky points that I had written down here on how this could ultimately end up happening. One thing to know is that there's something known as the liquidation process, which basically is the statute of limitation that a company can ask for its money back. That's 314 days. So some of those tariffs imposed on China have actually been imposed longer than that. So those companies want to get those back. But by and large, I think we're still within that time frame for these companies to ask for those requests.
- [06:47]
Paul Sweeney
And just a quick mention, equities building on their advance a little bit. With The S&P 500 now up a third of 1%, treasury yields are higher. And the thinking is with the removal of tariffs would leave a budget hole that we know already surpassed $130 billion as of December. Treasury would need to sell a lot more bonds to bridge the gap. And that would put some pressure on yields upward. Pressure. And of course, if there are refunds as part of it, that would only make the situation worse. It would exacerbate these moves.
- [07:17]
Scarlet Fu
So I guess, Tyler, there's still opportunities, there's still tools that the President can use to apply some tariffs, even if this IEBA sweeping one is no longer on the table.
- [07:28]
Tyler Kendall
Right. And we've already heard telegraphed from the administration that they're going to pull on these other federal authorities. Some of them are already in place. We talk a lot about Section 232, those national security Tariffs that the administration has put forward on some of those critical sectors, steel, aluminum, critical minerals, and a lot of those other areas that have been a focus of the Trump administration. When it comes to countering China, we could also see section 301 investigations. That's over unfair trade practices. We saw a lot of those imposed on China under the first Trump administration. Think allegations of IP protection violations as one example. And then there's some lesser known ones like section 338 that hasn't been used since the 1940s. I also have section 201 here, tariffs imposed on goods that cause injury to domestic industry. There's a lot. But basically the crux to think of this is that the Trump administration likes IPA because that's a lot more flexible, it's a lot more broad based. A lot of these tariffs have limits, have to go away after a certain amount of time and the rates can't go that high. A lot of these tariffs pay, have a 15% ceiling, for example, whereas we know the President in some cases has threatened tariffs, you know, 50% and onwards.
- [08:42]
Paul Sweeney
And also all the different sections that you cited, most of these tariffs can't be imposed instantly. There's a bit of waiting time. And we know the president wants to declare something and have it kind of be in effect almost immediately. And the IPA tariffs allowed him that flexibility, as you put it.
- [08:57]
Tyler Kendall
Exactly. A Section 232 investigation on average takes nine months to complete.
- [09:02]
Paul Sweeney
Yeah.
- [09:03]
Tyler Kendall
We have seen this administration in some cases do this under more expedited timeline because they actually pulled on investigations that were launched under the first Trump administration. So they were able to make the legal argument that they already had such a bolstering of information behind them that they could make the determination that this, you know, meets the national security concerns or the unfair trade allegations to put on their terrorists. But to your point. Exactly, Scarlet, this definitely limits the flexibility of the administration.
- [09:32]
Paul Sweeney
Tyler, thank you so much. And it's just our luck that Tyler Kendall happened to be.
- [09:36]
Scarlet Fu
Happened to be.
- [09:38]
Paul Sweeney
Clearly she was not anticipating this. I mean, we knew that this decision was coming along at some point, but the Supreme Court had passed up the previous two or three instances where it could have come out with this decision. Tyler Kendall, Bloomberg's Washington correspondent, on her way back to D.C. this afternoon. Thank you so much.
- [09:53]
Tyler Kendall
Thank you.
- [09:54]
Scarlet Fu
All right, let's go to June Grasso right now, Bloomberg Laws host. She joins us here in studio. June, I guess this was expected from, somewhat expected from a legal perspective. Does the 6 to 3 vote, does that mean anything? One way or the other, as opposed to maybe have a unanimous 9 0.
- [10:12]
June Grasso
Well, I mean, I guess it would be preferable for the people in the majority, for the justices in the majority to say, you know, this was a unanimous vote. But otherwise, you know, it doesn't really matter. It's, it's six to three with the very conservative justices in the minority. I mean, this was expected after the Supreme Court oral arguments. It seemed as if this was the definite conclusion. And so people were wondering what was taking so long. Well, what's taking so long is it's 170 pages, so it's kind of difficult to get through and to figure out exactly what happened. But what happened during the oral arguments was that you have this statute, aipa, that no other president has used to impose tariffs. And under this statute, there's a word called regulate. So how do you interpret regulate? Does that mean you can impose tariffs or not? And, you know, a lot of the justices, particularly the liberal justices, harped on the language of the statute. What does it mean? I mean, this is a court that's originalist, and they're trying to interpret all the time what the words of a statute or the words of a constitution mean. So they were looking at this and saying, you know, where do you get the authority in this statute to impose tariffs? And it was pretty obvious during the oral arguments that there were enough votes, particularly the chief justice. And the chief justice wrote this opinion. I'll just note that when I predicted that, because whenever there's a big opinion that he's in the center, he writes it. He wrote the, you know, the Supreme Court opinion giving President Trump limited presidential authority to be, say, to be, I'm trying to think of the right word, not to be prosecuted for acts committed, criminal acts committed in office. He wrote that one. He's written, like, all the very, very big opinions. So when we heard what he said in the oral arguments, it was pretty obvious what was going to happen. And it's just a question of why it took so long. And I think Justice Jackson had said last week that in an interview that there are nuances to this. So. And we won't be able to see the nuances until we get through some of this.
- [12:33]
Scarlet Fu
Yes.
- [12:34]
Paul Sweeney
170 pages.
- [12:35]
June Grasso
170 pages. It's, I mean, there are concurrences and partial concurrences. It's really, it's messy. I'd say it's messy.
- [12:44]
Paul Sweeney
And that's exactly how Brett Kavanaugh, the one of the dissenting justices, described the refund process, it was likely to be a mess, as was acknowledged at oral argument. Is it surprising then that the justices did not address the extent to which importers are entitled to refunds, that it's just basically kicking it back to the lower courts?
- [13:02]
June Grasso
Well, I think what the justices try to do is write as narrow an opinion as they possibly can. So why get into an area they really don't have to get into? And as you say, there's a lot of, you know, it's going to be messy. And so I think that that's the way this court operates. They don't want to rule on something that they don't have to rule on. And here they did a ruling on tariffs, you know, a week before the president is going to make his State of the Union address. That's why I didn't think it was going to come down today. We were talking about in the driven, like why would they do that? And then going to sit there. Is he going to say something about it? He probably will say something about it while they're sitting there. A lot of them will be sitting there. The chief always goes, oh, I see. You're saying they'll be at the State of the Union. That could always goes. Elena Kagan goes, usually so do Mayor goes. Alito hasn't gone since, since Barack Obama said something about Citizens United and Alito was shaking his head back and forth. So he hasn't been there. But maybe he'll be there for this. I don't know. So and Justice Gorsuch has gone, Justice Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett. So a lot of them do go. So it'll be interesting to watch and to see whether any statements are made from the president about that and whether there's any shaking of heads. So I was wrong about that and I and I admit it. So this came as a surprise this morning, even though the decision itself, what they did, didn't come as a surprise.
- [14:28]
Paul Sweeney
Yeah. If anything, this makes the State of the Union address that much more interesting to see how it all shakes out. The body language, not just what President Trump did will say, because I'm sure he'll probably say something even before his address next week.
- [14:41]
Scarlet Fu
Yep, absolutely. And we'll certainly given this is the
- [14:43]
Paul Sweeney
signature economic policy that he has really defined his administration.
- [14:46]
June Grasso
Right. He's been talking about how the Supreme Court, I mean, several times he said the Supreme Court has to rule in the right way on this. So and he's always bit well because they've been ruling so much in his favor on the emergency docket. He's been very complimentary about the court, but we'll see what happens. I doubt that's going to last.
- [15:05]
Scarlet Fu
All right. We'll stay on top of the president's social media output here today. June Grasso, thank you so much. We appreciate it. June Grasso, a Bloomberg Law host here, joining us here for this momentous decision here that U.S. supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump, sweeping global tariffs, undercutting his significant economic policy and delivering his biggest legal defeat since he returned to the White House. That is according to Bloomberg reporting. Scarlet Fu and Paul Sweeney live here in our Bloomberg Interactive Broker Studio. I'm looking at the top live again. Great, great reporting. Real time on this breaking story. Sean Donn, senior economics writer, he writes, it's not overstating things to say this is a historic decision that applies on at least two fronts. Number one, the policy at issue, Trump's increase in tariffs last year was the largest since the infamous 1930 Smoot Hawley duties. Number two, its application to presidential powers over the economy. Scholars in the lead up are calling this the biggest case in economic policy realm since the Youngstown steel case in 1952 in which the court blocked Harry Truman's bid to nationalize steel mills during the Korean War. Others have likened the idea of Supreme Court rebuking Trump on tariffs to the court's fight with FDR over the New Deal.
- [16:17]
Paul Sweeney
So, so a lot of historical context there. Certainly a huge landmark decision by the Supreme Court determining that President Trump's global tariffs are illegal. Let's bring in Henrietta Trays. Henrietta is our go to expert on all things policy and economics. She is the managing partner and director of economic policy at Vetta Partners. Henrietta, the market had largely anticipated this. We saw it reaction in certain retail stocks, companies that would benefit from the rollback of these tariffs. How are you looking at this?
- [16:49]
Henrietta Trays
I agree. This is just a tremendous day, a huge win for the Constitution for folks who cover tax policy. For anybody who remembers the Revolutionary War and we fought against specifically a taxation power that Congress did not have any say over. So this is in my opinion the largest and most impactful macroeconomic ruling the courts have ever delivered. So just a tremendous day. It is in line with what the market was expecting. You could see that investors were very prepared to rip the retail stocks, everybody who's been exposed to the 40% trans shipping tariffs, the ad hoc 50% tariffs on Brazil, the wide ranging threats of 200% tariffs on French wine that have just been spewing out of the White House for 12 months now. So it's really an exhilarating day, an incredible day for the Constitution, in my opinion.
- [17:44]
Scarlet Fu
Henrietta, is this, do you think, emboldened any of President Trump's adversaries, whether in Congress or just within Washington, D.C. apparatus, that maybe this gives them a little bit more confidence to push back? Is there any reason to believe that?
- [17:57]
Henrietta Trays
Absolutely. I think there's two ways to look at this. First of all, this is exceptional news for President Trump. Americans hate the tariffs. They know their taxes, they know that they're driving inflation, and they don't like them. So now that that authority has been stripped away from him, the president no longer has to collect these taxes. It's up to him to decide whether he wants to migrate into new and different authorities, like section 122, that give him the ability to impose tariffs at a 15% rate for the next five months. If he wants to do that, he can go ahead on. But the American public will be very grateful that the Supreme Court struck these tariffs down and even more grateful if he keeps them off. So that's one way of looking at it. And Republicans on Capitol Hill are staring down the barrel of a very ugly affordability narrative election cycle where we've seen races as diverse as Texas swing, 31 points away from President Trump just since he was elected. Those are tremendous losses for the Republican conference. And most of it is driven by the president's handling of the US Economy. It's influenced not just the traditional independent voter that we are always concerned with, but also with young male and Hispanic voters who have driven the president to his second term. So a lot to see here, a
- [19:12]
Paul Sweeney
lot to see here. And it's not just American stocks that are benefiting. I'm looking at, for instance, LVMH Hennessy in Europe climbing on the news, up 4.4% in European trading. So companies that rely on exports to the US Also benefiting from this ruling. Paul asks a really important question, Henrietta.
- [19:30]
Scarlet Fu
Basic.
- [19:30]
Paul Sweeney
It's very basic. Our tariffs rolled back. Starting today, they are illegal.
- [19:35]
Henrietta Trays
So at Border Patrol, one of the things that's questionable here is that the White House has said all these trade deals are still going to be intact. You know, we've signed these agreements. That is null and void. Now, if you are an importer and you are at Customs and Border Patrol, you no longer will suffer paying for these tariffs. The Supreme Court has told Customs and Border Patrol they can no longer collect them. So this is a problem that the White House is going to have to address. They have A number of trade deals that they have signed. I believe there's about eight at this point. And many of them include a reciprocal tariff of 10% in the case of the UK or 19% in the case of Indonesia. Those tariffs are illegal. The Supreme Court has tell the Customs and Border Patrol people this authority is not permitted. So it's the importers who are going to rise up and say, I'm not paying. It doesn't matter what the countries, you know, independently decide or whatever the White House says.
- [20:28]
Scarlet Fu
So what do we expect this administration? How do you expect the President and administration to respond here? Do you think they will aggressively try to work other tariff routes or maybe just let this issue die and just fade away?
- [20:42]
Henrietta Trays
I appreciate the question, Paul. I am widely, wildly out of consensus on this. But what I just described on section 122 is just one of the many alternates and alternatives that the President has. Section 301, which is, you know, $350 billion worth of tariffs on China, we could re up that and apply it to the eu, the UK or Brazil. All of those have been threatened. But think about what functionally that means. It means that individual businesses will have to go out again, get their trade lawyers on the payroll to comply with brand new, potentially even unused authorities that they'll have to comply with once again. Is it a 15% tariff rate under section 122? Does it exist now? When's the President going to put it on? What do I need to worry about with the National Security Tariff? The confusion and the uncertainty, which were the buzzwords following Liberation Day in April, are going to come roaring back. In the event the President decides to migrate away from IPA and move into new and different authorities. I think it would be extraordinarily disruptive. And again, with my eye on the election cycle and the affordability narrative, the President, I think, is already on a very tight leash, and he's not going to have the leeway to fully reimpose anywhere near the revenue that has been collected by so far. So I don't think these tariffs will ever come back at their current level, and I think they will be much more restrained going forward.
- [22:04]
Paul Sweeney
How does this all add up to what the President was planning to say in his State of the Union next week? Because affordability was something that the White House has signaled it's really going to start focusing on, especially with the midterm elections coming up. Now that the tariffs are ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, how does he fold that into his larger platform, man?
- [22:27]
Henrietta Trays
I mean, that is A pretzel of some logic they're going to have to work through here because of course, the president has been saying that the tariffs have been a huge boon to the US Economy. None of that is true. We just saw a very soft GDP print. We see that manufacturing jobs have lost 72,000 in the last year since Liberation Day. We see that prices have increased across a lot of the retail space. That's what consumers are feeling. And you can, you can't sell the American public on the idea that you're fixing our deficit problem when the deficit continues to rise and the trade and goods deficit continues to rise. So all of the arguments the White House has made are false. And now he's going to have to sell this to the American public. I suspect it'll be very uncomfortable for the front row of the House floor when he delivers the State of the Union on Tuesday. I will certainly be watching that. But they really stood up for the Constitution here. And the president's message, if he wants to migrate to affordability, he can talk about other things like, you know, the housing agenda that they have. I mean, it's not realistic to think that a 50 year mortgage is coming, but those are the kinds of pieces that he should focus on. I imagine there will be quite a bit of grievance touted on the tire front.
- [23:36]
Scarlet Fu
Interesting. All right, Henrietta, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate getting a few minutes of your time and your expertise. Henrietta Tray is managing partner and director of economic policy at Aveda Partners.
- [23:45]
Paul Sweeney
We should note that the president has responded. According to Kaitlan Collins of cnn, who tweeted out or posted on social media, President Trump commented on the Supreme Court ruling striking down his tariffs while inside the White House breakfast with governors this morning, calling it a, quote, disgrace. I'm told he told those gathered that he has a backup plan again, that is according to Kaitlan Collins, reporter at cnn, the president calling the ruling against his tariffs a disgrace.
- [24:11]
June Grasso
Paul?
- [24:12]
Scarlet Fu
Yeah, no surprise there. And we'll see, I guess we were talking to Henrietta Trez, what the response will be from President Trump, whether he will let this kind of fade away or whether he'll use some of the other options that he does have.
- [24:22]
Paul Sweeney
Many, many different alternative options, including filing for section 2322-013011-22338.
- [24:30]
Scarlet Fu
Oh, boy.
- [24:31]
Paul Sweeney
Yeah, there's a lot.
- [24:32]
Scarlet Fu
Exactly. All right, we welcome back to our studios, June Grasso, Bloomberg's legal analyst here. June, now you've had a couple more minutes to look at this 170 page ruling.
- [24:43]
Tyler Kendall
Well, any.
- [24:43]
June Grasso
Don't do that to me. Don't do that to me.
- [24:46]
Scarlet Fu
So, I mean, it is, I mean, we're just reading some of the reporting on Bloomberg Live, really calling it a historic ruling.
- [24:53]
June Grasso
It is historic. And also it's so important because, you know, as we've discussed before, this Supreme Court has been criticized for ruling for Trump on the emergency docket so many times. I mean, a majority of the times, more than the majority, a vast majority of times, there are just a couple of cases where they didn't allow, allow him to go forward with his agenda on the emergency docket. So here you have this enormous case on his, you know, sweeping global plans. And if the Supreme Court had not done this, if they had gone against the text of the statute and had ruled in his favor, think about what we'd be saying right now. This court is totally in Trump's pocket would be one of the things that, that, that would be said. So it's so important on so many different levels, not only the level of what's going to happen now and that the tariffs have been declared illegal, but also for the integrity, I think, of the Supreme Court. It would have been shocking if they had ruled for the tariffs.
- [26:02]
Paul Sweeney
So.
- [26:02]
June Grasso
Joining us now is Dave Townsend. He's a partner at Dorsey and Whitney. Trade attorney. Dave, can you explain for us the basic premise of the Supreme Court's majority opinion?
- [26:16]
Bloomberg News Anchor
Sure, June, and it's great to be with you. Yeah. The basic premise of the opinion is that the IEPA statute, which empowers the president to take action to regulate importation, doesn't extend to imposing tariffs. And so as a matter of statutory interpretation, the president exceeded the authority in issuing the global and fentanyl related tariffs.
- [26:40]
June Grasso
Is there anything, and I know you haven't gotten through the whole opinion, but is there anything that surprised you about this opinion?
- [26:49]
Bloomberg News Anchor
One thing that did surprise me a bit, June, about the opinion was how definitive it was with respect to the statutory interpretation question. The lower courts had been maybe a bit more measured. They had said that the use of the IPA authority had exceeded what I was intended to permit. And the Supreme Court, it looks to me, went one step further and said that the language of the statute doesn't permit tariffs, full stop.
- [27:20]
Scarlet Fu
So, David, does it. What's the 6 to 3 vote mean to you, if anything is a win a win, or is a 90 better than a 6 3? How do you, how should the market think about that?
- [27:32]
Bloomberg News Anchor
Yeah, I mean, I think a win is a win. Right? You only need five to uphold the lower court and find the tariffs were unlawful. But I do think the 6 to 3 vote provides even, you know, even a sharper defeat here for the administration's arguments. I mean, you had
- [27:55]
June Grasso
find, and I know Justice Kavanaugh during the oral arguments, talked a lot about what President Nixon did on the predecessor statute to ipa. Where do they find the authority of the president to issue these tariffs?
- [28:12]
Bloomberg News Anchor
Yeah, so the, the predecessor to IPA was the Trading with the Enemies act, twia. And the court had previously said that the language in TWIA that is to regulate importation did authorize limited tariffs. And so I think the dissent is pointing back at that and saying, consistent with, with that holding, we would find that the same language that Congress used in Twitter, they carried it over into ipa, would authorize the imposition of tariffs. And I mean, I do think that as a matter if you were reading IPA in a vacuum, the question of whether the, the language to regulate importation permits tariffs is tricky. It's difficult.
- [28:56]
June Grasso
Explain why it's tricky.
- [28:59]
Bloomberg News Anchor
Well, I think the administration's argument was we can clearly ban imports under that language and under ipa, and they've done that for decades under various economic sanctions statutes. And so the theory would go, if we can ban imports, why can't we do something more calibrated and measured, such as impose a tariff?
- [29:20]
Paul Sweeney
Just a reminder, if you're just joining us, we are speaking with Dave Townsend, partner with Dorsey and Whitney, and June Grasso, the host of Bloomberg Law, with us here, Paul Sweeney and Scarlet Fu on Bloomberg Intelligence. After the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's global tariffs, saying that he exceeded his authority by invoking a federal emergency powers law. Dave, let me ask you a dumb question. President Trump does not respond well to legal setbacks. We know that he appeals to a higher court and authority. There is no higher court than the Supreme Court. But is there really no legal recourse for him left here? Could he, I don't know, seek to impeach a justice or three justices?
- [29:59]
Bloomberg News Anchor
So, I mean, I think there's, there's kind of two dimensions here in terms of what happens next. One is with respect to tariff refunds and whether importers are owed tariffs. And the second is what does the administration do next? What is the US Tariff policy in light of this opinion? And the administration has been laying the groundwork, I'm sure, behind the scenes, but in public too, saying continuity will carry the day as of today and moving forward, and the tariffs in one form or another will be reimposed under probably a combination of authorities. So I think, you know, the refund issue is important to companies moving forward. The policy issue may not actually move that significantly, at least in, you know, the near term. I think they're going to be ready to come out with something very quickly to backfill and replace the IPA tariffs.
- [30:55]
Scarlet Fu
All right, Dave, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it. Dave Townsend, he's a partner with Dorsey and Whitney, giving us his thoughts on the legal side of this case. And of course, June Grasso, legal analyst for Bloomberg, joining us as well.
- [31:17]
Dupixent Advertiser
Having uncontrolled eosinophilic esophagitis or EOE can mean you're stuck in many ways, like cutting your food into tiny pieces
- [31:27]
Paul Sweeney
or
- [31:28]
Dupixent Advertiser
stuck chewing food for a long time. Dupixent Dupilumab, a prescription medicine for patients 1 year and older weighing at least 33 pounds, can help with that. It's a breakthrough treatment that can reduce inflammation in the esophagus and improve swallowing. How about this? Dupixent is not a steroid. It proactively treats EOE so you can get ahead of it. Severe allergic reactions, including skin reactions, can occur. Get help right away if you have trouble breathing or wheezing or swelling of your face, mouth, tongue or throat. Tell your doctor of new or worsening joint aches and pain, or a parasitic infection or asthma. Don't change or stop other treatments without talking to your doctor. Feeling stuck with eoe? Start treating with Dupixent. Talk to your gastroenterologist or allergist today. About Dupixent Learn more at dupixent.com or call 1-844-dupixent with Venmo.
- [32:17]
Scarlet Fu
Stash a taco in one hand and ordering a ride in the other means you're stacking cash back. Nice. Get up to 5% cash back with Venmo Stash on your favorite brands when you pay with your Venmo debit card. From takeout to ride, shares, entertainment and more, pick a bundle with your go to's and start earning cash back at those brands. Earn more cash when you do more with Stash. Venmo Stash terms and exclusions apply. Max 100 cash back per month. See terms@venmo me stashterms Running my small
- [32:47]
Dupixent Advertiser
business was like playing basketball 5 on 1 and I was the one. Now QuickBooks gives me access to a team of AI agents and trusted experts for the assists.
- [32:56]
Scarlet Fu
I need nothing but net outdoit with intuit. QuickBooks feature availability varies by production.