Th next time the courts face patently illegal tariffs, they should not wait so long to put an end to them, I argue in @lawfaremedia.org
Full piece here: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...
The courts were right to strike down the tariffs. But by permitting the tariffs to remain in place while they decided the case, they allowed damage to accrue that at best will take a generation to undo.
→ Our closest allies now talk about “de-risking” away from the United States, moving away from the U.S. dollar, and a “rupture in the world order.” Result: the US is isolated just as it faces the greatest threat to its security since the Cold War.
→ Manufacturing employment is down. Unemployment is up. Consumer sentiment is down. The trade deficit—the supposed “emergency” that the IEEPA tariffs were supposed to fix—is at a record high. Result: The economic “golden age” that was promised is even farther away than before.
→Consumers bore the bulk of $175 billion in illegal tariffs, but won't be seeing any refunds. Only importers who paid the government directly will receive money back. Result: the Trump administration took cash out of consumers’ pockets only to pass it on to businesses and their lawyers.
The Supreme court put an end to Trump’s emergency tariffs and refunds are now on their way. But 10 months of illegal tariffs caused damage no court can undo, I write in @Lawfare: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...
More than 10 months after they were enacted, the U.S. Supreme Court finally put an end to President Trump’s “emergency” tariffs. Stratos Pahis reviews the damage already caused by the tariffs that no court can undo.
"10 months of tariffs will take a generation to undo. One hopes that the courts will keep that in mind the next time this or another administration enacts patently illegal tariffs," write @stratospahis.bsky.social.
Do treaties matter in settling international investment disputes?
@stratospahis.bsky.social, associate professor of law at @brooklynlawschool.bsky.social, joins @busscholarship.bsky.social to discuss his article "Are Investment Treaties Redundant? Evidence from Investor-State Disputes." 1/2
The podcast is available here:
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/s...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/episode/2sPn...
YouTube: youtu.be/CRliAoMvb-U?...
Direct: andrewkjennings.com/2026/01/22/s...
Investment treaties are the international agreements scholars love to hate. But do they really matter? Thanks so much to @andrewkjennings.com and @busscholarship.bsky.social for having me on to discuss my paper: "Are Investment Treaties Redundant? Evidence from Investor-State Disputes, ICSID Rev
First was a great conversation with @stratospahis.bsky.social on a nuanced view of investor-state dispute resolution on the @busscholarship.bsky.social www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRli... (2/6)
If it’s ham and Swiss, you must dismiss
The charge was baloney
What options does Trump have if the Supreme Court rules against his emergency tariffs (as after yesterday's arguments seems likely)? I spoke to the The Associated Press about them here: apnews.com/article/tari...
The fact that the administration chose tariffs instead of those other more effective means of restricting imports shows that revenue generation is in fact major purpose of the tariffs. Common sense and the President’s own statements lead to the same conclusion.
In any event, if the goal was actually to stop all imports--as the Solicitor General suggested--then quotas or blockades would be a much more effective tool.
That argument strikes me as very weak and almost self-rebutting. The expected revenue from the tariffs is $2 trillion over the next decade. To call that revenue "incidental" is absurd.
The SG also repeated more than once that the way you could tell these are “regulatory tariffs” is that they would be most effective in reaching their goals if no one ever paid the tariff (meaning they led to a complete halt to imports).
This argument is key to the government's case that IEEPA's language "regulate...importation" authorizes the tariffs here and that they pass constitutional muster.
The Solicitor General emphasized over and over that the IEEPA tariffs are “regulatory tariffs” not “revenue raising” tariffs, and that any revenue was merely incidental to the tariffs.
A majority of justices on the Supreme Court seemed skeptical of the legality of the IEEPA tariffs during oral arguments today. But I was surprised that one of the government's key arguments wasn't subject to more scrutiny.
But yes of course if any former/current USTR folks want to speak on or off the the record, please DM me!
Yes - I have had some helpful off the record conversations so far have confirmed the theory - not quite sure what to do with that in the paper though, since it's not quite scientific and in any event the paper obviously takes a different methodology...
Very helpful to think through this - thank you - and more comments very much welcome!
But ultimately I think defiance would have actually threatened greater and more permanent damage to the institution by undermining its legitimacy - which (unlike appointments) is not something that can't be restarted on a dime.
As far as defying being a less forceful, I'm not sure I agree. Perhaps more spectacular, yes...
But perhaps the US saw refusing to participate as a bridge too far - if so then the question becomes why? And I think that just brings us back to why would the US view the process as so important...
Yes - thank you - that is a great point that is worth unraveling. As I envisioned it, at least in its most extreme form, defiance would have included refusing to participate in AB proceedings, which would have made it no less costly than objecting to AB appointments.