Trump loses MAJOR case, dealt MASSIVE blow

I'm joined now by All Rise News' Adam. Classfeld. Adam, we have a major ruling. in court right now that's going to have. global implications as far as Trump is. concerned. Can you explain what just. happened? >> Absolutely, Brian. What happened is the. Court of International Trade has just. ruled that Trump's latest justification. for imposing tariffs, and in this case a. 10% global tariff, was just as illegal. as his first justification. Now, we knew. this was coming when the Supreme Court. struck down the original rationale of.

Trump's tariffs. It was an unprecedented. decision to use what's known as IEEPA, the International Emergency Economic. Powers Act, as a justification to. unilaterally impose tariffs. That's what. the Supreme Court struck down earlier in. Trump's term. Now, in his dissent, Justice Kavanaugh. uh suggested that there are any other. number of justifications that Trump. could use. Now, it's important to note. that the majority said those. justifications don't wash, either. But,

Trump tried it anyway. He issued a. proclamation saying that he's going to. use the Trade Act to try to accomplish. the same goal, unilateral tariffs. And. what a three-judge panel majority found. is that that justification doesn't wash, either. >> Adam, Donald Trump is still imposing. tariffs or increasing tariffs across the. world kind of at will. Just a few days. ago, on May 1st, he increased his tariff. um uh on on cars and trucks that were.

imported from the European Union from uh. 15% up to 25%. So, how does this ruling right here impact. his subsequent behavior as it relates to. tariffs? >> Well, one thing we've always seen with. Trump, you give him an inch and he'll. take a mile. And what when the Supreme. Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs, what they said very clearly was the. President of the United States doesn't. have the unilateral authority to impose.

tariffs. That in our constitutional. system, it is the Congress that has the. power of the purse. Now, there are some. in the descent, like Kavanaugh, who say, "Well, you can try this. statutory scheme. You can try that. statutory scheme." And that's what he. was trying. Now, I haven't read the. particular legal uh. rationale that he gave for those 25%. tariffs. What we're finding here, and.

what was very clear in the original. Supreme Court ruling, is that all of. those other justifications come with. time limitations. He can't impose them. forever. This particular justification, the Trade. Act, had a 150-day window. And so, he's running out of options. He's running out of loopholes here. And. I'm going to read from the decision. You. have them saying, flat out, the. proclamation, quote, is invalid, and the.

tariffs imposed on plaintiffs are. unauthorized by law. That is a shot. across the bow. That is saying, this is. illegal. If you're trying to use this. justification, the Trade Act, that. doesn't work either. So, he's down two. laws. He's almost certainly going to. appeal this decision, just as he did the. first round of tariffs. But what we've seen here now, I expect it to go much faster. In this. ruling, there is talk about the refund.

process. The refunds on the original. tariffs are coming along the way. And. so, Trump will I expect keep trying to. find loopholes, but those keep getting. patched. Now, I'm assuming that he's. going to put his best defenses forward. first. And so, if he failed on the first. two tariff schemes that he attempted, wouldn't logic suggest that any. subsequent efforts to say, "Okay, fine.

I'm not going to use IEEPA. I'm not. going to use whatever other tariff. scheme I've attempted already. I'm going. to try the third best or the fourth best. or the fifth best." Doesn't that suggest. that like this is kind of a doomed. effort if his best options already got. thrown out in court? >> Right. Well, I don't think that he's. pursuing these ideas based on legal. merit and how it will. how it will end up in the long term. >> this just the uh throw against the. wall and see what sticks method? >> Absolutely. And we've seen it happen in.

very different contexts. Look at Kilmar. Beriggo Garcia. You know, next week. Kilmar Beriggo Garcia is going to be. back in court fighting another attempt. to send him to Liberia. It's the third. time. And so, what we have in Trump's. second term, especially, are these. radical exercises of power that he's. daring the courts to catch up with him. As a matter of fact, and I don't want to. get too far into the weeds in this. ruling, but I think the details are.

important in this instance. Uh we were. talking a little bit earlier, Brian, about how in this ruling the there is a. question about the scope of the. injunction because a coalition of states. sued, and one of those states has. standing to sue, and a couple of the. importers do as well. So, there is a. question in the wake of this ruling, uh. how many people will be entitled to. refunds. And the reason why that.

happened is that when Trump was putting. forward his birthright citizenship ban, he is almost certainly going to lose uh. that argument, but along the way, he. fought against and won the abolition of. nationwide injunctions. And so, I think. the way Trump sees things is have the. opening point of a negotiation, choose. something as lawless as possible, as. brazen as possible, and see where the.

courts stop you. And where they won't. stop you, take that space. >> Adam, is there any indication as to how. the Supreme Court may rule on this if. and when they get their hands on this. thing? Because we all know that Trump is. going to continue to appeal this thing. up until he's exhausted every legal. remedy possible. >> Absolutely. And I think that. Chief Justice Roberts actually tipped. his hand here because as I mentioned, it. was Kavanaugh who suggested there were. other statutory schemes that Trump could.

use. And And Roberts responded to him at. that point and expressed his skepticism. about all of those alleged workarounds. So, yes, I agree with you, Brian, that. this will almost inevitably go back to. the Supreme Court. But I think that it's. going to be the definition of insanity. that they keep trying the same thing. hoping for a different result. >> I was going to say, I mean, have you met. Have you Have you I don't know how. familiar you are with the President of.

the United States, but that is a pretty. apt descriptor. Also, I mean, the whole. thing is. feels just kind of insane to me because. it's pretty clear that Congress has the. ability the the unilateral ability to. impose tariffs. And so, when Trump. usurped that authority for himself just. because he feels like a strong man, that's no legal basis, no legal. justification to be able to unilaterally. impose tariffs. And he'll, you know, grab out wildly for different legal. justifications to be able to do so, but.

it. I presume it's pretty clear in the law. that this power belongs to Congress and. that every time Trump attempts to say, "Okay, fine, it's not under this. authority, but it's under this. authority. Okay, fine, if it's not under. this then it's under this. But he's just. kind of grasping at straws here which. only. which only reinforces the fact that that. he was never doing this with any. well-reasoned, you know, under any. well-reasoned legal doctrine. He's just, you know, retroactively searching for.

some legal justification to justify his. actions but in actuality this this power. does and should belong to Congress. >> Absolutely. And it raises a question. If. this is such a sound and smart economic. policy, why is he afraid to make his. case to Congress? Because Congress might. not like the fact that he is imposing. tariffs on uninhabited islands that. other than penguins are the recipients. of his tariffs. Congress might push.

back. But there is nothing stopping. Trump from trying to persuade a Congress. controlled by his own party from. imposing these tariffs that he believes. are good for the country or that he. claims are good for the country. Make. your case. It's not the the law that. requires him to do that. It's the. Constitution. of the United States. >> Well, and we of course know how much. respect the president has for that. So,

with that said, we will of course stay. on top of this issue. For those who are. watching right now, if you'd like to. support Adam's work, this is true. fearless independent journalism. Um, the the best way to support his work. is to subscribe to All Rise News. I'm. going to put that link right here on the. screen and also also in the post. description of this video. Adam is often. going all around the country to cover um. to cover any of these cases often times. in person and again he's doing it on his. own dime. So, a small step that we can. all take to support some of his work is. to subscribe to All Rise News. Adam, as.

always, thanks so much for taking the. time. >> Thank you so much, Brian. Always a. pleasure.