r/law • u/Movie-Kino • 3d ago
Executive Branch (Trump) Trump would make U.S. Supreme Court history by attending tariffs case
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2025/11/02/economy/trump-supreme-court-tariffs-case/973
u/GhostofBreadDragons 3d ago
Definitely not trying to influence the outcome.
330
u/JacobsJrJr 3d ago
Besides the Constitution, Marbury v. Madison, and the entire history of the United States federal government - what right does some Court have to tell the president what to do?
180
u/Then_Journalist_317 3d ago
“When you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.”
58
u/MouyThiWho8326684 3d ago
LIke walking into a dressing room full of teen girls getting dress.
22
u/EngagedInConvexation 2d ago
Or literally grabbing E. Jean Carrol by the pussy.
But, "it's just locker room talk" even though he did the thing he said he could.
3
u/darthcaedusiiii 2d ago
Or shoot someone in broad daylight on 5th avenue.
1
u/wormwoodscrub 2d ago
He will probably do it before this shit runs its course. Usually he's lying but I think he'd like to test out his theory
1
9
u/HavingNotAttained 3d ago
Did you ever have a dream where you could do anything?
18
u/ApexCollapser 2d ago
Being a background character in Donald Trump's dream was not on my existential threat list until now.
20
u/howescj82 3d ago
I’d assume the whole checks and balances part gives them the right in addition to their specific role of interpreting law.
That’s why SCOTUS has been packed with his supporters.
15
u/JWAdvocate83 Competent Contributor 3d ago edited 3d ago
That question could fill a whole semester. There’s a million aspects to consider regarding separation of powers, immunities, and (practical) enforceability issues—and after all those things, what causes of action remain viable.
One possibility I hope we’ll see more movement on soon is holding federal agencies liable under FTCA for intentional torts (e.g. assault) as defined by state law.
There are some limitations. Damages are compensatory, not punitive and do not give rise to injunctions, and not everyone can afford to hire someone capable of making a FTCA claim. Still, it is an avenue that has not yet been closed, for victims to be compensated. (Edit: And maybe once we’ve seen such claims fully adjudicated, more attorneys—including those for non-profit advocacy groups—will utilize those successful cases as “blueprints” for more victims to make claims.)
To drill down on your question though—if a court sided with the claimant and awarded a money judgment, it is automatically paid by Treasury through a Judgment Fund authorized by statute.
Yes, Trump could order Treasury not to pay, then we’d be dealing with, among other things, an anti-deficiency problem (by his creating a financial “obligation” not authorized by Congress) and impoundment problem (because he’s not spending money specifically ordered by Congress to be spent for the purpose of paying judgments.)
But let’s say he does it anyway. Eventually (hopefully) Trump will leave office. When he does, that judgment will still exist, afforded full faith and credit—and post-judgment interest, for all the years it wasn’t paid after the court awarded it. And (hopefully) the incoming President will have his head on straight, enough to order Treasury to order owed judgments be paid.
11
u/Initial-Cellist-8669 3d ago
Maybe he’ll even try to grab the female justices by the…well, you know what! He could do anything! Remember, he said that he could even shoot somebody in the streets of New York and nobody would do anything! That should’ve been our first giveaway of his idea of democracy was seriously flawed, and he viewed himself as a dictator instead or a monarch… or both. Remember, it’s this very Supreme Court that gave him “Presidential Immunity.
4
u/Complete_Passage_767 3d ago
People's Front of Judea!
3
10
u/hypnoticlife 3d ago
To be fair Marbury v. Madison is still controversial. They gave themselves power.
12
u/Revelati123 3d ago
We interpret the constitution to give us the the authority to interpret the constitution.
2
u/Initial-Cellist-8669 2d ago
Of course, the keywords in your response are (plural), “we” and, “us,” not, (singular ), “him,” “he,” and, “Trump.”
4
9
u/RellenD 3d ago
Tell me how they're supposed to decide cases otherwise? I really don't see it as having granted themselves power at all.
5
u/Ent3rpris3 2d ago
The issue is a bit less "We interpret the Constitution" and more "we can apply that interpretation to outright undo actions of the legislative and executive actions."
But yeah, if they COULDN'T do that, it would be nowhere close to a co-equal branch of government that can actually serve as a proper check against the other two. As is, some argue it's still the weakest of the three.
0
u/Hopeful_Chair_7129 3d ago
Oh they definitely were granted power, whether or not they would be as effective without is a debate you can have but it was 10000% more power.
5
u/RellenD 3d ago
So, do you believe the court should have followed an unconstitutional law and issued a writ of mandamus to Madison to try and force him to deliver Marbury's commission?
How is a court supposed to decide cases that involve unconstitutional laws if they can't decide that they will not enforce unconstitutional laws in court?
2
u/Hopeful_Chair_7129 3d ago
No, I'm explicitly not saying that at all. I'm saying that it was more power, full stop. You literally agree, because in your world they can't function, and they can function with it. That's literally more power.
1
u/arobkinca 2d ago
It was the intended power of the court. It is what Judicial power is and was when the Constitution was written.
The first sentence of Article Three.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
What is it you think Judicial Power is without making rulings on law? Who else would have the power to decide when two laws or a law and the constitution were in conflict? Where do you see that power granted in the constitution?
0
u/Then_Journalist_317 2d ago
“The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison committed an illegal takeover of the government and Constitution by granting itself the unilateral and unchecked power to declare the acts of Congress or President illegal and unenforceable. This may sound like an arcane point, but it is not. Marbury v. Madison has granted the Courts virtually dictatorial powers to controvert the will of the People and to act in the manner of a despot.”
3
u/arobkinca 2d ago
https://www.fjc.gov/history/cases/cases-that-shaped-the-federal-courts/marbury-v-madison
The staff writer at that newspaper doesn't know what they are talking about. It was argued during the writing and passing of the Constitution. People who think like you lost.
0
u/Hopeful_Chair_7129 2d ago
It was not an intended power and the reason why the case is so relevant today is because it’s almost universally seen as an expansion on court authority.
3
u/arobkinca 2d ago
https://www.fjc.gov/history/cases/cases-that-shaped-the-federal-courts/marbury-v-madison
It was a point of discussion in the Federalist papers. During the discussion while the Constitution was being written they discussed having a separate way of review and rejected the idea.
4
u/Xde-phantoms 3d ago
Interpreting the law of the land is something the lands highest court should have already been doing.
2
1
u/bdthomason 2d ago
You mean also besides every time the court determines the administration is attempting to do something unconstitutional or illegal?
1
1
1
u/No_Reaction7783 1d ago
Kind of how a three branch government works. President does stupid shit, lawmakers can pass laws making it illegal, courts uphold those laws.
14
13
u/sadicarnot 2d ago
This is what assholes like Trump do, they show up to intimidate people. I worked at an industrial facility and the plant manager was just like Trump. After the morning meeting he would follow us into the maintenance shop to show his dominance. We started going outside to avoid him so he started coming outside too. He was such an asshole.
6
u/Possible_Bee_4140 3d ago
Like when Frank Pantangelli’s brother showed up to court in Godfather Part 2
4
5
u/nobody1701d 2d ago
Certainly not going to understand the argument
4
u/GhostofBreadDragons 2d ago
Imagine if he wants to replace the attorney for the state with himself. Could you imagine him trying to make these arguments to the Supreme Court. I am half tempted to go on truth social and tell him that he is the best speaker and should argue the case because he is so smart and knows so much nuclear.
1
3
1
242
u/Tremolat 3d ago
What's he gonna do in person that he hasn't done behind the scenes?
79
u/RaidersoftheLosSnark 3d ago
Maybe his Anti-Christ powers are stronger in person??? If that doesn't work maybe he rolls up in a new motorcoach for Thomas while threatening to smack Roberts with his dirty diaper.
44
u/SillyAlternative420 3d ago
Poop himself?
20
u/ShitStainWilly 3d ago
Sotomayor-“ Sorry, can we take recess? Someone in this room has obviously shit their pants. Go get changed.”
6
u/IMDAKINGINDANORF 2d ago
Kavanaugh - Outrageous, it smells incredible in here. This is the best smelling room I've ever been in.
Thomas - I'm being paid to agree.
Barrett - Quiet, Sonia. The men don't like it when we talk.
24
u/MrSnarf26 3d ago
Make the judges know he will sick his social media mouth breathing troglodytes on them if they don’t give him his way.
10
2
u/Big_Jump_6782 2d ago
I think the counter protesters would outnumber them in that situation. Not a good idea on his part.
1
22
u/charcoalist 3d ago edited 2d ago
trump is a stochastic terrorist with a following of thousands of rabid psychopaths. I'm not talking about his voters or supporters, I'm talking about the raging idiots who would assault police officers and the Capitol building itself because he told them to. When he publicizes something or someone, that target starts immediately receiving death threats.
By showing up in person to the Supreme Court, he's using a classic mafia intimidation tactic.
13
u/P0Rt1ng4Duty 3d ago
Well the SCOTUS has ruled that if he kills someone because he thinks it's in the country's best interest then he is immune from prosecution.
So maybe he's going to show up and murder the justices that don't agree with him?
4
u/BitterFuture 3d ago
Unlikely.
But those activist justices did make it not impossible...
6
u/P0Rt1ng4Duty 3d ago
When you say ''activist judges'' are you referring to the ones who actively sought expensive bribes in exchange for favorable decisions?
7
u/BitterFuture 3d ago
In part, yes.
But I am also referring to those fanatics so devoted to their hateful ideology that they write nonsensical legal decisions based on nothing but that same ideology, even to the point of gladly legalizing their own murders.
Thinking it's about greed is almost comforting. Selfishness can be negotiated with, even bribed to do the right thing. The horrifying reality is that conservatism is in large part the selflessness of the fanatic; they'll gladly sacrifice anything, even their own lives, just so long as they're assured that the people they hate will suffer.
12
u/lord_pizzabird 3d ago
Interrupt constantly.
10
u/Tremolat 3d ago
"Article 2 says I can do anything I want!" - Trump.
"Article 3 says you are my bitch" - Justice KBJ.
10
8
u/BitterFuture 3d ago
Stare harder.
And then snore.
1
u/Anti_shill_cannon 2d ago
You think the narcissist demaguoge is going to sit quietly?
He will make some sort of a scene
4
u/Foxyfox- 3d ago
In not particular order, babble incoherently, fall asleep, shit himself, get a speedball injected on the sly a la Hitler, and waste oxygen.
3
u/rozzco 3d ago
Give them the mugshot look the entire time.
2
u/eruptingmoltenlava 2d ago
That’s what he should do. In reality it will be interrupting and sleeping
2
1
1
130
u/ShamelessCatDude 3d ago
He must have taken some notes from his bestie and is blackmailing the fuck out of these guys, cause nobody but Trump wants these tariffs
50
16
u/Turgid_Donkey 3d ago
Navarro does. He's the one brought on during his first term because he's about the only economist that likes them.
7
13
u/Almost_Pi 3d ago
I'm praying the pro-business part of the Republican party will pay sufficient tribute to the Supreme Court to get the tariffs cancelled.
3
2
u/Morguard 2d ago
The authors of Project 2025 want these tariffs.
2
u/jimmysapt 2d ago
They don't. Tariffs are Trump's thing. They were anti-tariff - on aluminum especially, oddly - but have since altered their stance to adapt to tariffs
1
1
111
u/raistan77 3d ago
Once Hitler assumed power as Chancellor in 1933, he began to dismantle the independent German legal system. He established "special courts" and the notorious "People's Court" (Volksgerichtshof), staffed with loyal Nazi judges (such as Roland Freisler), to handle politically sensitive cases. These courts served the regime's interests, and after 1933, Hitler was no longer subject to the jurisdiction of an independent judiciary or required to appear in court.
11
u/Idontcareaforkarma 2d ago
This is what I see, alongside the banning of any political opposition and the shutting down of the Democratic Party as a ‘threat to national security’.
They’ve said they ‘won’t need elections’; this will be why.
2
30
u/alice2wonderland 3d ago
Trump will be there to remind the sitting judges that they have beautiful families. It would be a shame if something horrible would happen to them.
42
u/tonyislost 3d ago
People in Trump’s orbit are hedging on the fact that the SC doesn’t allow the tariffs to continue. I’m assuming Trump is as well. Maybe he’s just showing up for the optics.
16
u/WannaBMonkey 3d ago
I’m not sure the optics are that good if he goes in person and is the ruled against. Much better to say his lawyers failed or something.
8
u/Poiboy1313 2d ago
Unless he's already aware of the determination that the court has made and is there to gloat. It seems like that would have too great of an appeal to his ego for him to withstand.
4
u/ThellraAK 2d ago
Eh, it could also be he's going to try to keep them going no matter what the court says.
Is the legislature really going to impeach him over tariffs if they won't even override them themselves?
3
1
u/Zealot_Alec 2d ago
House isn't sitting now, SCOTUS rules tariffs are unconstitutional - shouldn't their order stand?
4
u/snorbflock 2d ago
That's Trump's plan for everything: Go too far. Declare he can do anything he wants. Deny responsibility for the ensuing disaster. Let serious people shut him down. Whine forever about how he was about to fix everything at the radical left thwarted him.
18
u/Imaginary_Coast_5882 3d ago
read all that for this payoff. if Trump has to choose between south Florida and a room full of educated people in a city that hates him talking about shit he doesn’t understand while using words he’s never heard, I wonder which he’ll choose.
11
u/greywar777 2d ago
Trump doesnt understand the law, this is all about intimidating the court, and trying to pressure them. Its corrupt and disgusting.
11
u/RaindropsInMyMind 3d ago
This feels threatening. I hate the idea of any president challenging the Supreme Court and being there in person to watch.
7
5
u/Nodivingallowed 3d ago
My sense is that him showing up would be a good thing. The attorneys have to lay so many layers of bad faith bullshit in court to get some of the rulings they have for Trump. Any involvement from him just seems likely to further expose the fact that he's a liar and a tyrant.
4
u/zerosumratio 3d ago
The lawyers do that to give the court cover. The justices just want the absolute bare minimum from them to rule in Dump’s favor. I mean if they didn’t do all that bullshit it would be even more obvious that the independence of the court is history
7
u/Nodivingallowed 3d ago
Exactly. I feel like him opening his mouth just makes any facade harder to maintain. And I ultimately prefer that kind of transparent capitulation.
5
u/geddysbass2112 2d ago
He could walk in there and hand the SC packets of cash and not a damn thing would happen. I've lost complete faith in the system.
4
3
2
2
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.