“RT @marklevinshowTHE APPELLATE COURT MAJORITY TARIFF DECISION WAS WRONGThe appellate court majority that ruled against most of the presidents tariffs has it wrong.  Whether you like tariffs or not, the act at issue does, in fact, grant the president broad powers to declare an emergency.  Even more, the Constitution, under Article II, grants the president broad powers to make foreign policy.  The presidents lawyers are obviously aware of this, which is why the executive orders at issue rely, in part, on serious foreign policy considerations, including, as an example, Mexico, Canada, and China, which the president has determined are not doing enough to prevent the flow of deadly drugs into our country.  The combination of broad authority and Article II powers trump the issues raised by the courts majority.  Moreover, judges should not be the final decision-makers about such matters as theyre exercising authority that was never delegated to them, and they should not substitute their own policy preferences for the presidents.  The check here is Congress — that is, if it wishes to amend the law or pass a new law curbing the presidents power here.  That said, Congress does not have boundless power, and it could run into separation of powers issues, given Article II and the presidents foreign policy authority.  The Supreme Court will, once again, rule on this.  In the past, Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have noted the broad authority of the president in circumstances similar to this.  I expect Justice Alito would concur.  ” @realDonaldTrump

Fact-Check Summary

The post claims that the appellate court wrongly restrained presidential tariff powers, asserting broad executive authority under statute and Article II. However, constitutional and legal analysis shows that tariff power is primarily a Congressional prerogative. Recent federal court decisions (7-4 appellate court majority) emphasized that the Constitution and statutes do not permit unilateral presidential imposition of major tariffs without explicit Congressional authorization, as was attempted under the cited orders. IEEPA, referenced by the post, grants limited emergency authority, but not the sweeping tariff power asserted. The majority’s decision follows established legal interpretation and constitutional boundaries.

Belief Alignment Analysis

The post criticizes the courts and frames judges as improperly substituting their own preferences, undermining the judiciary’s constitutionally assigned role. It uses divisive rhetoric by suggesting courts should defer completely to executive power in trade or national emergency matters, rather than respect the rule of law and the legitimate judicial review process vital for checking executive overreach in a healthy democracy. The overall tone prioritizes presidential power over legal and constitutional process, misaligning with democratic norms of checks and balances and civil, reasoned discourse.

Opinion

While the executive does have foreign policy authority, the Supreme Court and lower courts have consistently ruled that imposition of tariffs is a Congressional power unless clearly delegated by statute with clear limits. The post conflates some legitimate elements (IEEPA emergency powers; foreign policy discretion) with wide overstatement, glossing over established limitations and the purposeful design of the constitutional framework. Judicial review of these issues is an essential part of the U.S. system and not a mere substitution of policy preference.

TLDR

The courts acted within clear constitutional and statutory limits in finding against broad presidential tariff actions. Presidential emergency powers do not override the specific, core power Congress holds over tariffs. The post exaggerates the president’s legal authority and misrepresents the legitimate role of federal courts in democratic society.

Claim: The appellate court erred in limiting presidential tariff authority; the president has broad powers under both IEEPA and Article II to impose tariffs as a matter of emergency and foreign policy, and courts should not substitute their preferences for the president’s judgment.

Fact: The Constitution assigns authority to impose tariffs to Congress. IEEPA grants the president emergency powers, but courts and legal history confirm these are not unlimited and do not override Congressional power over tariffs. The appellate court accurately applied existing law and doctrine, and judicial review in such cases is a constitutional safeguard—not judicial overreach.

Opinion: The post relies on hyperbolic framing of presidential authority and dismisses the vital democratic role of judicial review, which is necessary for a functioning separation of powers.

TruthScore: 3

True: The president has foreign policy and certain emergency powers; Congress may amend relevant laws to limit the executive if desired; Justices have commented on executive authority in the past.

Hyperbole: Asserting that courts “should not” rule on the legality of presidential actions or that their authority is usurped by the judiciary; suggesting virtually unchecked presidential tariff powers not grounded in constitutional or statutory reality.

Lies: That IEEPA or Article II clearly grant boundless tariff-imposing authority to the president, contrary to the explicit constitutional and statutory assignments and current appellate decisions.