A first thought on the federal circuit's decision on tariffs

I'm writing this post well ahead of its appearance -- I'm writing on the evening of August 29, soon after the US Federal Circuit has upheld a decision in May by the Court of International Trade that the tariffs imposed by President Trump's executive orders in and since what the administration called "Liberation Day" (April 2), are without statutory mandates and so are in violation of the constitution's requirement that Congress determine taxes.

Full text of decision is freely available here: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1812.OPINION.8-29-2025_2566151.pdf The matter was heard en banc -- that is, the whole of the "bank" of the circuit, rather than the usual three-judge panel.

The whole bank broke down 7 to 4.

I of course applaud the result. Trump has long been "liberated" from any sense of economic reality or constitutional obligation but we ought to resist when he seeks to "liberate" the rest of us. I have not yet had the opportunity to study the specifics with care. All I wish to do tonight is to go over the question of who appointed whom. Which President appointed which of the judges of the federal circuit who voted in the majority of this decision?

The judges in the majority are (ordering by seniority) Alan Lourie, Timothy Dyk, Jimmy Reyna, Todd Hughes, Kara Stoll, Tiffany Cunningham, and Leonard Stark. The appointing Presidents are George H.W. Bush (Lourie), Bill Clinton (Prost), George W. Bush (Reyna), Barack Obama (Hughes and Stoll) and Joe Biden (Cunningham and Stark).

It is fascinating that every President since Reagan left town who has NOT been Donald Trump is represented within this majority.

God bless Lourie and Reyna for giving some respectable 'Republican' cover to this group in advance of the inevitable attacks.

Just a thought.

Comments

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable a...

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog