Latest / INSIGHT TODAY / Top lawyer in Supreme Court tariffs case says Trump took it completely beyond the law

Transcript

Top lawyer in Supreme Court tariffs case says Trump took it completely beyond the law · INSIGHT TODAY

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Or I spoke to former federal judge Michael McConnell. He
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: was one of the lead lawyers who argued against these
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: emergency power Trump tariffs. Michael, two questions to start your
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: reading of the majority opinion and your reaction to President
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: Trump saying those who ruled against him on the High
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: Court were disloyal to the Constitution.
• 0:23
  Speaker 2: I think anyone who reads the opinion will realize that
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: it is based upon a very solid interpretation of the Constitution.
• 0:32
  Speaker 2: Some may disagree with it, but the notion that it's
• 0:34
  Speaker 2: disloyal to the Constitution is absurd.
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: And as you read the underlying law, the nineteen seventy
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: seven law, and what it allowed and what it did
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: not allow, how far beyond that law do you think
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: President Trump tried to take it?
• 0:50
  Speaker 2: Well, he took it completely beyond the law. The law is.
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: This is the law having to do with sanctions on
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: other countries in the event of conflicts, things like sanctions
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: on Russia after the Ukraine and that sort of thing.
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: It is nothing whatever to do with taxation on Americans.
• 1:10
  Speaker 2: And tariffs are in fact taxations in American companies when
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: they import foreign goods AIPA, which is that's what we
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: call that statute has never been used for that before,
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: and it's in fifty years history, never been used for that.
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: The President also said from the podium of the White
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: House today that the Supreme Court had become subject to
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: foreign interference and that the litigants who brought this case
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: were slime balls and sleeze balls, not representing American interests.
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: How do you respond to that.
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: I don't why the comments of that, or they're just
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: not they're not serious comments.
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: Because the court is something that isn't subject to any
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: outside influence, or the litigans themselves have a viable place
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: before the court.
• 2:09
  Speaker 2: Well, there's no doubt that these litigants had a viable
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: place before the court. They are five small businesses who
• 2:16
  Speaker 2: were taxed illegally and they challenged that in court, as
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: any American has the right to do.
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: When the President spent a lot of time extolling what
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: he considered to be the constitutional virtues of the dissenting justices,
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: specifically Brett Kavanaugh, how did you evaluate Justice Kavanaugh's interpretation
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: that the law did allow for these teriffs, and they're
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: a common tool and presidents should have wide authority to
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: be able to use them.
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: Well, I have enormous respect for Brett Kavanaugh. I think
• 2:45
  Speaker 2: he's an excellent justice, but I think on this that
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: he was wrong. One of the main points that he
• 2:51
  Speaker 2: makes is that the Major Questions doctrine, which is the
• 2:55
  Speaker 2: idea that Congress has to speak clearly when it makes
• 3:00
  Speaker 2: large scale delegations of power to the executive, doesn't apply
• 3:05
  Speaker 2: in the field of foreign affairs. The problem with that
• 3:08
  Speaker 2: argument is that the framers of our constitution, you know,
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: back in seventeen eighty seven, knew that tariffs had an
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: impact on foreign affairs. That was no mystery to them,
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: and they nonetheless gave that power to.
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: Congress, right, and the first crisis, and it was a
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: crisis for Andrew Jackson. His vice president, John Calhoun resigned
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: in the nullification crisis, which was a crisis over tariffs
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: and South Carolina, saying that the federal government didn't have
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: a right to impose the teriffs because it dealt with
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: them economically through foreign powers. I mean, that's part of
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: something this country wrestled with. Then the Supreme Court wrestled with.
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: Then that is a part of this backdrop, is it not?
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: Well, well, sort of, but the Supreme Court didn't grapple
• 3:52
  Speaker 2: with that. Congress grappled with that Congress has been throughout
• 3:57
  Speaker 2: American history until very recent, Congress has been the forum
• 4:02
  Speaker 2: for discussion of tariff policy. So you know, there was
• 4:05
  Speaker 2: a Jackson episode, there were the McKinley tariffs, there were
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: the Smooth Holly tariffs. All of these debates took place
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: in Congress. Never before as a president taken over a
• 4:15
  Speaker 2: tariff policy the way President Trump has sought to do.
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: And I heard within the President's remarks today a kind
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: of acknowledgment that other authorities exist, other authorities have always existed,
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: and that he will use them now, but they're more cumbersome.
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: But he always had those alternatives.
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: Open to him, Yes he did, but he chose not to.
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: I mean, he specifically used IEPA because it was unbounded,
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: because there were no limits. There were no time limits,
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: no procedural limits, no limits of any sort under his interpretation,
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: of course.
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: Right, and Michael, how would you assess the importance of
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: this question put before the court and the Court or
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: it's judgment on this matter of newly interpreted, nearly newly
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: interpreted presidential power.
• 5:07
  Speaker 2: Of course, the immediate impact for the American public will
• 5:11
  Speaker 2: be on prices, and it's very hard to know exactly
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: how fast when. But the longer and I suspect most
• 5:21
  Speaker 2: important impact over the next half century is going to
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: be that this requires that the president stay in his lane.
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: That the president has very important powers in our system,
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: but he doesn't have unlimited powers. And if he's going
• 5:36
  Speaker 2: to exercise a power that has been delegated to Congress,
• 5:40
  Speaker 2: he has to be following congressional will and carrying out
• 5:43
  Speaker 2: a congressional statute.
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: Last question, Michael, the President said, this opinion said nothing
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: about refunds of these tariffs, and he said we're going
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: to be in court for two to five years. That
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: suggests to me the administration has no intent, at least
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: currently to initiate the refunds. Is that how you read it?
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: And what do you think that leaves the Lidigans who
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: sought relief before the High Court on this particular matter.
• 6:11
  Speaker 2: I think my clients, the five small businesses in this case,
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: well will be entitled to their refunds immediately. That's what
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: they sued for. They brought the claim the government. At
• 6:24
  Speaker 2: no point did the government argue that there was any
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: reason not to give them the refunds. To which they're entitled.
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: Other than their legal argument that the tariffs were properly imposed,
• 6:38
  Speaker 2: it's the end of the case for them. Now. There
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: are numerous other businesses out there that have paid taxes.
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: Some of them have already filed for loss for refunds.
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: Many more will do so. Who knows how long those
• 6:51
  Speaker 2: will take. But it doesn't seem like a very complicated
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: procedure to me. Now, I'm not a trade lawyer, so
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: I don't know for sure, but I don't see why
• 7:00
  Speaker 2: these can't be processed relatively quickly.
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: They could be self executing unless the administration doesn't want
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: to execute them.
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: Well, the administration is within its rights to demand that
• 7:11
  Speaker 2: they file suit, But once they're in court, they'll be
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: in the Court of International Trade, the very court that
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: we went to months ago and that held that the
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: tariffs were illegal. I see no reason to doubt that
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: the Court of International Trade will do its duty here.
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: Michael McConnell, I appreciate your time very much, sir, Thank you,
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: thank you.