Source: The Fix Is In to Torpedo Trump’s Tariffs in New York Trade Court

The fix appears to be in for two court cases against President Donald Trump’s tariffs, according to a very knowledgeable source.

Last month, five domestic businesses filed a lawsuit in a little known trade court in New York challenging Trump’s tariffs, arguing they have to rely on imported goods that are not reasonably available to them in the U.S.

In his April 2 executive order imposing a set of reciprocal tariffs, Trump declared a national emergency, calling trade deficits a threat to the nation’s national security and economy.

Trump’s tariffs are central to his economic agenda and designed to reduce the trade deficits between the United States and other world powers.

A three-judge panel at the United States Court of International Trade in lower Manhattan heard arguments in the case Tuesday, and reportedly “appeared skeptical” of the president’s arguments.

If the panel decides that Trump’s emergency declaration was unlawful, it would effectively block the president’s global tariffs and upend his economic agenda.

The chief judge of the United States Court of International Trade is Mark A Barnett, who joined the court in 2013 after a nomination from President Barack Obama. He became chief judge on April 6, 2021.

According to the well-placed source, rather than drawing the panel at random, Chief Judge Barnett “fixed” the outcome by selecting three judges whom he knew would “overrule the president” and render his tariffs “null and void.”

The source told American Greatness he was given this information by “very reliable people” who are “very close to the court.”

The three judges deliberating the case are Judge Gary S. Katzmann, an Obama appointee; Judge Timothy M. Reif, a Democrat appointed by Trump in 2019; and Senior Judge Jane A. Restani, appointed by President Reagan in 1983.

The same panel is reportedly set to hear arguments “in a parallel case brought by 12 state attorneys general” on May 21.

The Courthouse News Service provided a rundown of the court proceedings on Tuesday:

Jeffrey Schwab, of the Liberty Justice Center and representing the businesses, argued Tuesday that Congress intended the 1977 statute to grant presidents the ability to regulate imports in an emergency, such as increasing inspection at ports, not impose tariffs.

He said Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs “represent an unprecedented and unlawful expansion of executive power,” noting that the U.S. has faced a slowly growing trade deficit since the turn of the century, not the sort of “unusual and extraordinary threat” required by the statute.

Restani pushed Schwab to define a standard that the court could use to decide whether Trump’s emergency declaration was lawful, but Schwab argued that a definition was unnecessary considering the unprecedented nature of the case.

“I’m asking the court to be an umpire and call a strike, and you’re asking me, ‘What’s the strike zone, is it at the knees or slightly below the knees?’” Schwab said. “I’m saying it’s a wild pitch, it’s on the other side of the batter and hit the backstop. So we don’t need to debate the difference between the strike zone.”

Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton argued that the president had clear discretion to decide the cumulative effect of the ongoing trade deficits had reached the point of emergency.

Hamilton said that the nation’s reliance on imports from other countries has made the supply chain vulnerable, potentially exposing national security risks.

Ultimately, Hamilton argued Trump’s declaration is not reviewable by the courts because it is a political question and thus only Congress could intervene.

Senate Republicans on April 30 narrowly shot down a Democrat effort to terminate Trump’s declared emergency.

The next stop in court for Trump should he lose the two cases would be the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington D.C.  Further appeals could then be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States.