The latest attempt to stop President Donald Trump from acting as a president came this week in a California federal district court, where the governor and attorney general got a judge to toss out a tariff case against Trump.
On paper, the move by Biden appointed U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley looked like a Trump “win” that dashed Gavin Newsom’s attempt to stop the administration’s tariff agenda.
Judge Scott Corley ruled that the proper venue for tariff disputes is the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), reasoning that federal law grants the New York-based court exclusive authority over such cases. The Trump administration requested that the case go to the CIT. But that was not to be. California’s seemingly limitless number of attorneys, arrayed to go after Trump, argued that the case raised “constitutional issues” and should be heard in federal district court rather than the specialized trade court.
It’s possible that Congress thought it had already answered that constitutional issue back in 1980, when it established the CIT under Article III.
California wants to go after the Trump administration to undermine the idea of a unitary executive calling the shots for the American economy. To underscore that point, Governor Newsom recently reached out to the People’s Republic of China—the Chi Coms—to talk trade in defiance of the Trump administration’s national security concerns. In this way, California’s case certainly is a constitutional issue.
The administration has argued that tariffs were part of the president’s national security strategy. Trump’s legal rationale is that the U.S. needs to expand sourcing its own products to buttress the nation’s supply chain. That need, along with existing unfair trade rules, poses a national security threat to the nation. The president also argues that trade imbalances have impacted border security, leading to the opioid crisis in the country.
The CIT didn’t buy that logic in a recent case in which 12 states that don’t like the Trump tariffs won a temporary injunction against implementation of the tariffs.
The Washington Post reports that there are “nine active lifetime-appointed judges on the Court of International Trade: Chief Judge Mark A. Barnett, M. Miller Baker, Jennifer Choe-Groves, Gary S. Katzmann, Claire R. Kelly, Joseph A. Laroski Jr., Timothy M. Reif, Stephen Alexander Vaden and Lisa W. Wang.” Most are Democrats.
The chief judge was appointed by Barack Obama.
Former D.C. U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova said the CIT ruling against Trump was “a fix.”
“That case was fixed from the beginning,” he said. “The chief judge on the International Court of Trade purposely picked three judges that he knew would rule against the president of the United States,” he added. “I think Congress should hold hearings on that.”
In this latest case, the Biden-appointed California district court judge refused to grant the Trump administration’s request to go to the CIT and instead granted the state’s motion to dismiss the case. That move sends the case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is where leftist judges give breath to a “living” constitution. This is despite, or maybe in spite of, Trump 45’s yeoman’s effort to appoint normal people, who have read the Constitution, to the bench. Appeals to the court have already been filed by California.
Trump appointed ten judges to the court, or slightly more than a third of the 29 judges on that panel. It’s the nation’s largest circuit. Sixteen of the judges were appointed by Democrats and 13 by Republicans, mostly by Donald Trump.
The 9th Circuit Court is to legal leftism what Joe Biden’s autopen is to forgery.
California AG Rob Bonta crowed over the judge’s favor to him, issuing a statement that in politicalese said, “We got a judge to stall Trump’s attempt to save the U.S. economy, aren’t we terrific?”
OK, what it literally said was, “We strongly believe this case belongs in federal district court and are pleased the court considered our wishes in dismissing this case so we have the opportunity to seek review.” He forgot to add, “and delay, delay, delay the implementation of the Trump agenda.”
One would assume that an ideological Biden-appointed judge would add to the already 17 nationwide injunctions trying to kill Trump’s presidency. She was obviously convinced to accede to California’s wishes to let it go to the 9th Circuit.
The real, unspoken question being asked in the courts is: Will we allow Trump to be president?
Editor’s Note: To celebrate the passage of the tremendous One Big, Beautiful Bill, we’re offering a fire sale on VIP memberships! Join us in the fight against the radical left today and support our reporting as President Trump continues to usher in the Golden Age of America. Use promo code FIGHT at checkout to get 74% off!
