[kelnos]

Congress didn't delegate tariff power to the president absolutely. The executive branch still needs to make the case that the tariffs are being put into place for specific reasons that are covered by the specific ways that Congress delegated tariff power.

The court here seems to have decided the executive has not done that.

[SlightlyLeftPad]

Eventually, it may not matter what the courts think as their power is also effectively limited by the reduction of consequences for ignoring court orders.

Source: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/te...

SEC. 70302. RESTRICTION ON ENFORCEMENT.

    No court of the United States may enforce a contempt citation for 

failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.

[tptacek]

Further, Congress can't delegate tariff power to the President absolutely; any such delegation would be unconstitutional.

[SlightlyLeftPad]

Isn’t it actually more accurate to say that they _can_ delegate power and while unconstitutional, it remains in effect until challenged by the judicial branch?

[tptacek]

You can make that argument about literally anything, so it's not especially meaningful or worth noodling on in a thread.

[SlightlyLeftPad]

I disagree, it is worth talking about because the impacts of delegated decisions made impact real people in meaningful ways while those may or may not be challenged in court. To say a branch can’t delegate absolute authority is also a mischaracterization of reality. Assuming orders are challenged in the first place, it often drags on for many months or years leaving the impacts in effect until that concludes.

[tptacek]

It's a classic example of an argument that proves too much. It might be correct, but it's not useful.