Post–Supreme Court Remarks: Tariffs, Constitution, and Separation of Powers | DRM News | AC1F

Thank you. Uh my name is Neil Katiel. I

argued on behalf of the private uh

parties, the small businesses in this

case at the Supreme Court. I want to

begin by thanking the Liberty Justice

Center and in particular its director

Sarah Alrech for brilliant brain the

brilliant brains behind the operation.

They were integral to everything you saw

in the argument today and we appreciated

very much the chance to present our case

to the Supreme Court. The justices asked

tough questions but fair questions and

very thoughtful ones. Our message today

is simple. The Constitution, our

framers, 238 years of American history,

all say only Congress has the power to

impose tariffs on the American people.

And tariffs are nothing but taxes on the

American people, paid by Americans. This

case is not about the president. It's

about the presidency. It's not about

partisanship. It's about principle. And

above all, it's about upholding the

majestic separation of powers laced into

our constitution that is the foundation

for our government. We thank the

justices today for their extensive

questioning in this case and we look

forward to the resolution.

>> Thanks, Neil. Good afternoon. I'm Sarah

Alrech from the Liberty Justice Center

and I have the pleasure of working with

Michael McConnell and Neil and our

private plaintiffs on behalf of all

small businesses in the United States.

We are very proud to have brought this

case to challenge unlawful and

unconstitutional tariffs that are

devastating small businesses across the

country. Like all Americans, we are

endowed with the right to take our

government to court when it violates the

law or defies the Constitution. In this

case, it did both.

These un unilateral tariffs imposed

without congressional authorization are

unlawful. AIPA does not permit the

president to issue this kind of sweeping

arbitrary tariffs at any at issue in

this case. They're also

unconstitutional.

Tariffs are taxes and the constitution

grants taxes to Congress, not the

president. Our founders designed a

system of separation of powers to

prevent exactly this kind of unilateral

lawless action. We thank the court for

their time and look forward to the

resolution of this matter.

>> Hi there everyone. Thank you for coming

today. I'm Victor Owen Schwarz, founder

of EOS Selections. For nearly 40 years,

my family has built this business from

the ground up. Today, reckless tariffs

threaten everything we've achieved.

Let's be clear, these tariffs aren't

paid by foreign governments or

companies.

It's American businesses like mine and

American consumers that are footing the

bill for the billions of dollars

collected monthly by our government.

Unlike past tariffs set by Congress that

we could plan around, these new tariffs

are arbitrary. They're unpredictable and

they're bad for business. They've thrown

my family business and thousands of

others into chaos. The pain has been

felt across the country from warehouse

workers and truckers to retailers and

restaurant tours. That's why I joined

this lawsuit. I was shocked that those

with more power and money did not step

up. The reason I was able to file this

case is because the Liberty Justice

Center did step up and offered 100% pro

bono legal services to me and other

affected small businesses. When I was

given the chance to speak up for small

American businesses, I took it. I had

to. Our very survival is at stake. I'm

grateful to the Liberty Justice Center

and our legal team for their vigorous

advocacy, and I urge the court to

recognize the real harm these tariffs

inflict on American families and

businesses. Thank you.

>> Thank you guys.

>> Can you confirm that

was there?

Yes,

>> thank you.

Yeah. Yeah. No, I saw him.

>> Yeah.

There.

not

give us about

Well, good afternoon everybody. Uh my

name is Dan Rafield, attorney general

for the state of Oregon. We're proud to

bring this case today. I think there was

something that was incredibly important

um that was said today and it wasn't

said by any of our attorneys. It was

said by President Donald Trump solicitor

general when he looked Justice Roberts

squarely in the eyes and said the

American people, not foreign countries,

but the American people are going to pay

30 to 80% of these tariffs. and then had

the gall to look all of those justices

again in the eye and say that these are

not taxes on the American people and

they're doing it by abusing an emergency

power. And I think that was the

conversation that we heard today. Very

proud of our attorneys and proud to have

these amazing partners in Agaze and AG

Bont um along in this incredibly

important fight when America's facing an

affordability crisis.

Um, thank you, Agent Grreyfield. I'm

Chris Mace. I'm the attorney general of

Arizona, and I would just echo those

comments. This was uh we feel really

good about the arguments today. Um, and

the questions that were asked by the

justices. Um, but you know, we we

brought this case and this case is so

important, maybe the most important case

that this court uh has heard in a

hundred years uh especially to our

economy and to consumers and to

businesses large and small. Um, and

that's why we brought this case because

number one, these tariffs are illegal.

Uh, they uh were they were uh not

predicated in the law or the

constitution. But most importantly, they

are impacting the people of our states.

We have small businesses in Arizona that

are going out of business every day.

I've talked to a furniture manufacturer,

a restaurant tour, a hotel owner, uh

cattle ranchers along the southern

border of Arizona, all of whom are

struggling because of these tariffs and

because they are raising prices on the

people of this country. And so we needed

to come here and we need to win this

case. And uh that's why we're here. We

appreciate the opportunity to make these

arguments. And I'll turn it over to my

colleague Raanta.

Thank you everyone. Rob Bont, California

Attorney General and grateful to be here

uh with my colleagues on behalf of the

the states that have brought suit uh to

support the American people who deserve

better, who deserve to not have costs

raised, who deserve to not be the

victims of unlawful tariffs, tariffs or

taxes. Congress has the power to impose

taxes. The president does not. He has

used tariffs in a sweeping manner to

impose 10 to 145% taxes on nearly every

one of our trade partners. and workers

are suffering, businesses are suffering,

families across the country are

suffering because of his unlawful

conduct. And California is the fourth

largest economy in the world, the

biggest state in the nation. We are the

largest importer of any state, the

second largest exporter, the largest

exporter of a we're the biggest

manufacturer. We are having an outsized

economy. So these tariffs have an

outsized impact on the people of our

state and on our state. So I I thought

the argument uh surfaced all the key

issues. Um and we are hopeful for a

decision. We won't predict or or

speculate um about what might happen,

but I thought it was a great argument

and we hope that uh when the decision is

made by the Supreme Court, we will be

able to deliver the relief that

Americans deserve to have their costs

lowered and not have a president who

acts brazenly uh and blatantly in

lawless manners as he has done uh with

the violation of the law here when he

has no statutory authority to impose

these taxes. And we're happy to answer

your questions.

>> General May.

>> Yes.

>> Uh you joined or filed 30 different

lawsuits January since Trump came in for

a second term.

>> Rob's filed more. So is Dan. But anyway,

>> but who's counting?

>> You mentioned the impact this could have

on everyday Arizonans. What's at stake

if this lawsuit in particular when it

comes to terrorists isn't successful?

>> Yeah, I mean I think all three of us

feel a very heavy burden today because

we know that we have to win this case.

Um what is at stake for the state of

Arizona uh like like all the states

frankly is that prices if if we don't

win and these tariffs are allowed to

stay in place prices are going to

continue to go up. Um these are taxes we

are now Americans are now dealing with

an average 17.5%

national sales tax because of these

tariffs. That's what this is. Um and so

what's going to happen is consumers are

going to continue to pay more. is going

to be a really rough Thanksgiving. It's

going to be a really rough Christmas and

holiday season and our small businesses

are going to continue to go out of

business if these tariffs are allowed to

stay in place. And so the stakes of this

particular argument could not possibly

be higher for our country and for our

economy.

>> Why was news? Could you share a little

bit more about what the justices said

today about the major question? I mean,

I'll I'll take that first, but I thought

it was really interesting. Um, you know,

there were obviously multiple justices

who raised the major questions doctrine

issue. Um the this is a court that that

has uh you know uh has you know favored

the idea that uh when uh an agency does

something that is uh extraordinary and

major um it it it cannot do so without

going to Congress first. And a couple of

the justices compared the tariff scheme

that Trump put in place to a major

question or major the major question

doctrine. I thought that was a really

good sign. We'll see. Again, we're not

going to predict anything, but I thought

it was a good sign for the plaintiffs

for us. the truth.

Uh speaking of all those dozen of case,

some critics argue that some of your

lawsuits are driven by the particular

>> by what?

>> Oh, look, I mean, and I'll let my

colleagues answer this too. Um, our

lawsuits are driven by the law and by

the constitution. Look, is it my is it

on my bucket list to sue Donald Trump?

Absolutely not. This is not what I get

up every day wanting to do. But if

Donald Trump uh decides to violate the

Constitution, violate statute, or harm

the people of Arizona, I'm going to file

that lawsuit. And the 30 lawsuits that I

have entered the state of Arizona into

have saved the state of Arizona 1.5

billion dollar. And it's interesting

that the Republican AGs are not filing

these lawsuits and and as a result their

people are losing billions of dollars.

>> And I would also just when you look at

the partisan thing, look at the Oh,

excuse me. We're talking about whether

any lawsuit is partisan. We have a very

sterile analysis. Are Oregonians being

harmed? If the answer is yes, is the

Constitution or law being violated? If

the answer to those two questions are

yes, we're filing a lawsuit. And what

everybody should note is on all of these

cases where we've sought immediate

relief, we've been overwhelmingly

successful. Look at this tariff case

right now. We have judges that were

appointed by Trump, multiple judges that

ruled in our favor because these are

foundational principles of how our

democracy uh is uh put together. And I

think you saw that here today that a lot

of this stuff, it doesn't matter where

you come from, whether you're Republican

or a Democrat, these are incredibly

important issues that are affecting all

of us. And right now it's our

pocketbooks.

>> Justice mentioned the irony of Neil Kial

arguing in favor of the non-delegation

doctrine. If you just speak to the

broader irony of having a Republican

president arguing in favor of what is

arguably tax increases and Democratic

lawyers argue using the major question

doctrine and non- delegation doctrine

and just kind of the broader kind of

inversion of labor.

I mean, I I would just say that we're if

you watch the Netflix uh you know the

what is the thing that we're in that the

world of the upside down, right? You

have

>> Stranger Things.

>> Yeah, Stranger Things, right? We're in

the world of the upside down. If you go

back to Ronald Reagan and C Canada was

doing this, right? They're literally

putting ads on TV of Ronald Reagan. Um

and then our president, you know, gets

incredibly sensitive. He's thin skinned

and then all of a sudden he increases

tariffs again. What a better argument

for what's going on right now. Uh but

effectively tariffs can be a very

helpful tool in trade when you have

someone that's trying to manipulate

markets. You know, we want to have fair

balanced competition. But in a case

right now where we're being used

punitively, where there aren't

emergencies and they're taking powers

away from Congress, that's what this is

really about. So I see consistency um in

how we're using this case and how we're

using this uh you and the the impacts of

tariffs. Very consistent. But it is odd

to me to have free trade Republicans um

fearful to speak out um and you have the

Canadian government using, you know, the

standard bearer for the American

republic Republican party, Ronald

Reagan, against um themselves.

>> I mean, could I just add to that? I'm a

former Republican, okay? I'm a former

Republican from the great state of

Arizona. It is insane and bizarre that

we have a president of the United States

right now who is uh engaged in an almost

18% national sales tax that violates the

Constitution and violates uh federal

law. So this is this is not the

Republican party that I used to belong

to at all ever. It is not something that

that that Republicans used to believe

in, but they are now uh allowing it to

happen out of the White House and saying

nothing about it at Congress in

Congress. Bill,

>> you only got one question about remedies

from Justice Bar. I'm wondering what you

made of that question generally and what

specifically you think what what an

adequate remedy would look like in this

court in this case. Look, when I think

about remedies of what this president

has done, because I'm absolutely

positive that his lawyers looked him in

the eyes and said, "Hey, what you're

doing is debatably not constitutional,

youly don't have the power to do it." He

did it anyway, and he did it in a way

that our small businesses and consumers

and everybody across this country are

paying for the bill. I teach my son,

when you screw up, you make it right.

Um, and I believe that's what the

president needs to do.

>> So, what should that look like? Like a

refund for all Oregonian importers. What

what exactly were you hoping that really

looks like here?

>> No, the implementation of how you make

it right needs to be done um in a

conversation with the appropriate uh

government agencies. In a perfect world,

right, if you paid a given tariff out as

a small business, especially when you've

got small margins to get through each

month, that money should be repaid back.

>> I just want to make a comment about

state AGs who have come together. I I

first I want to say I'm very proud to be

with this incredible coalition of AGs

who've together about over 50 cases.

Want to also say that we're winning over

80% of these cases. So we're prevailing.

We don't ask ourselves a partisan

question. We ask ourselves a legal

question. Is the president breaking the

law? That's the only question. If the

law and the facts indicate that he is

then and he's hurting our states, then

we sue him. If the facts and the law

indicate that he's complying with the

law, we don't sue him. We don't want to

sue him. We hope that the president will

follow the law. not a lot to ask that

the president of the United States of

America follow the law and comply with

the constitution. But he is repeatedly

breaking the law. And so we meet him at

the boundaries of his authority and we

say you shall not cross here. You cannot

pass here. You cannot move beyond this

authority and do unlawful things. You

can only do lawful things. And so that's

why we're here today. And the unlawful

action that he has taken is hurting the

American people, hurting the people in

our states, hurting businesses,

families, and workers. And we're here to

make things right. And hopefully we'll

get a remedy from this court. Thank you.

If the president uses section 338 to

similar tariffs, are we going to be back

here in a few months?

>> Well, well, we'll have to see what he

does next. This, as uh the advocates uh

for the states and and for our side

indicated, this is about whether he has

the authority under AIPA. He doesn't.

So, if he's going to impose me, maybe

he'll say, "I'm not going to impose any

tariffs. I was unlawful. You stopped me.

I'm done." Maybe he'll say, "I will come

back." We'll have to assess what he does

and what they look like, and we'll have

to match his actions to the law to see

if it complies. Again, if it doesn't

comply, we'll sue him. Um, if it does

comply, then he may do lawful things as

as I've stated. So, we'll have to assess

what he does ne next and decide our next

action based on that assessment.

>> We tire you out.

I can't

>> I I So I think the question was, do we

have a backup plan if the Supreme Court

doesn't rule our way? And so I I think

we all uh feel like we're going to wait

for this court to rule. Uh we again we

feel good about the arguments that were

made and we feel good about the

questions that came back from this

bench. Um and so you know we we we are

hoping for a positive result. We are

hoping uh that this court will decide

that the administration violated the

constitution and IPA. Um and you know

we'll cross that bridge when we come to

it. But I'll tell you what,

uh these tariffs need to to to go away.

We needed to slay this dragon called

tariffs or taxes. Uh because the people

of this country uh uh are hurting. They

are uh now uh laboring under the triple

whammy of ACA uh price increases, SNAP

benefits not coming through in

Thanksgiving, and uh tariffs that are

driving up inflation. We need to win

this case and we're really hoping that

we do.

>> Thank you. We got time for one more

question. One or two.

>> Do you know you know Mr. Gum practice

the donut hole country?

>> It's actually dominated the last month

of our interaction. Uh we were like do

we want to do a croissant? Do we want to

pronounce it the way that the French

pronounce croissant? Are we going to

stay American in cron? Are those

croissants tariffed? A lot of questions

that we've had over the last month to

prepare for this moment in time. Yeah.

>> Yeah. I mean, I I I think that's true

because it's been a long time since

we've had a president who was willing to

violate the Constitution on a near-w

weekly basis. And so we are seeing

concepts come up like the non-legation

doctrine, like separation of powers that

haven't been a problem for uh hundreds

of years or certainly decades. And so

you know, yeah, it's the Supreme Court

is having to grapple with these concepts

and we are having to file lawsuits based

on them because no president has

violated the law and the constitution as

much as this one has.

>> Last question.

>> You mentioned consistency before. Just

to follow up my question before, do you

see consistency in how Democratic

attorney generals and governments have

applied the major questions action

previously during the Biden era and now?

>> Yeah. And I can't speak to how prior AGs

have applied uh the major questions

because people have been on both sides

of this fence throughout the way. But

what we talk about is what is the

current structure of our case law here

in America today. That is what needs to

be applied to the rules that are going

on right now. And the truth of the

matter is, you heard them today talk

about that $4 trillion of tariff

revenue. Um, if you use even 25%, that's

lower than the math that they told the

justices, that's a $1 trillion hidden

tax on the American people. $1 trillion.

And there wasn't a single vote taken in

that building over there. And that's

what the Constitution requires when

you're raising revenue in this country.

And right now, if you allow this uh the

president to continue to do this, you

can raise taxes on anything, hidden

taxes left and right on any good, any

amount for any duration, and all of us

are going to pay the cost. That's why

this is so important. And kind of

getting back to the question, if we were

to lose this case, it's an important

conversation for the American people to

say, is this what we really want in our

country? And it allows Congress to have

information to cabin the authority of

the president if we are because this is

an American conversation because we're

all paying for it as Americans.

>> Thank you all so much.