California sues President Tariff President Trump's reign of tariffs has been challenged on the left and right by the State of California and the Liberty Justice Center. On April 2, 2025, the White House announced a broad set of tariffs on goods imported into the States, a tax that generally gets passed on to buyers. The rates [PDF] range from 11 percent, for …
West (California, Economically Sane) in conflict with East (Need I say?)
Republican in conflict with Democrat
LGBQTIASB+ in conflict with Nuclear hetero-normal favouring.
Rich and powerful in conflict with everyone else.
Diversity favouring verses bigots.
Get out the popcorn, sit back, and watch the fun and games.
El Tonto has repeatedly thumbed his nose at every federal court from district courts, to circuit courts, and the supreme court, as well the international court of justice in The Hague.
Do they really think El Tonto and his band of know-nothings will really pay attention to any law suit? Barr already screwed the public under El Tonto the First by claiming the president can't be prosecuted.
Even though there is NOTHING in the constitution or US Code stating this claim.
I suspect the people bringing the case are well aware of the limitations of the Courts, but know this is a step you need to go through.
Ultimately no court has the power to force the executive to do anything - that power ultimately rests with the people. If people are happy voting in governments that ignore their courts, then that's what'll happen.
It's the only recourse people have as long as Congress and the House are allowing Trump to do what he wants, even if it's a power that is reserved to them. Given what he's already done in the past the threshold to get enough of them to grow a spine and impeach him and actually convict him this time is huge, but I suspect things will change nearer the elections (unless he manages to knobble them too, which I'm sure is on the agenda).
Nah they'll get immediate time with a friendly judge, and Trump will be able to almost immediately appeal it to SCOTUS, which he's entitled to do. They'll send it back saying to the courts "you didn't really mean this, did you? would you like to try that again and do what you were supposed to?" and stay a bunch of the most egregious nonsense, at which point the district court will throw a wobbler, and then it'll end back in SCOTUS. It's a pattern that is emerging in US legal circles - Abrego Garcia is the case closest to going back for it's second run at SCOTUS, which Trump will win again, though there are others - and the second runs they're going to come back with very definitive language that courts at this level don't get to do this.
Trump will have had time to die of natural causes.
Hope not.
I have a picture of that traitor's grotesque visage staring from his separated head impaled on one of the steel fence palings outside the Whitehouse accompanied by those of his treasonous blaggardly co-conspirators.
Are the various states allowed to cede from the union?
I don't see why not, and Texas has sometimes grumbled about going independent. The UN supports the right to independence and self-determination, and supported the Scots with their independence campaign. So it's conceivable that California or any state could hold a referendum and then leave the republic/union. See also Brexit and the EU, or the EU incentivising countries like Hungary, or Slovakia leaving that union. It's also been a staple of SF & often dystopian fiction with states like Texas or California seceeding and going their own way. Probably unlikely to ever happen, but could be entertaining to watch.
"Are the various states allowed to cede from the union?"
In a word, yes.
But the hoops they would have to jump through make it exceedingly difficult.
See the the U.S. Supreme Court's 1869 ruling in "Texas v. White", which concluded that a State (or States) could secede by gaining approval of both houses of Congress and then obtaining ratification by three quarters of the nation's State legislatures. (This will never happen with California, because money. California is the world's sixth or seventh largest economy. The Congress and Senate will never vote to give up the perks involved. Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Alaska ... maybe not so much.)
The other option is Revolution (there is absolutely nothing civil about war) ... and even that might be settled peacefully. The theory goes that If enough people in a given State are so pissed off at the Federal Government that civil unrest becomes inevitable, and probably extreme, the State(s) and the Nation might simply agree to part ways to minimize the damage.
Are the various states allowed to cede from the union?
Good question. I don't think the US Constitution has much to explicitly say on the matter although I don't recall it having much to say on the enlargement of the Union either, presumably leaving the matter to the legislature and executive.
The last effort in the 1860s doesn't have a lot to commend it unless 800,000 to 1,000,000 American dead isn't considered undesirable. I suppose Trump last time polished off a million odd Americans with his COVID policies and now with RFK in charge of HHS he might manage to double that body count.
I believe the Australian Constitution actually included provisions for the state of Western Australia to secede, for Fiji and New Zealand to join the Federation and for the Northern part of the state of Queensland to become a separate state (none of which have eventuated or is ever likely to) but is quite a different document, thankfully from the US Constitution.
"Good question."
Answered in my post in this very thread. See the Supreme Court's 1869 ruling in "Texas v. White":
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700
Specifically paragraph 101:
"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."
n.b. What happens in Australia has no bearing whatsoever on US law.
"wanna-be President Newsom has pretty much bankrupted California"
He's also keen on suing the Federal government costing the state billions more in attorneys and fees. With so many items coming into the US via California ports, there's likely many more avenues of retaliation that could be put in place before enriching the lawyer class.
"Wonder if the secession movement in California will get momentum"
There is already some talk, but the general consensus is it's not going to happen.
If trump manages to fiddle the mid-terms to any great degree (and mark my words, he will try), all bets will be off. Nationwide, not just California.
In principle. If a government official is particularly hostile in court (direct contempt) they might get sent down for a few days until the contempt is remedied.
As far as I'm aware - and I'm not a lawyer - indirect contempt (occurring outside the courtroom, such as by failing to comply with a judicial order) is a more complicated matter and may require a criminal investigation, depending on the circumstances. The balance of opinion seems to be that the President has the power to pardon criminal contempt.
So, as we have seen on multiple occasions now, the famous "checks and balances" of the US system of government are mostly made of straw.
"The president can pardon federal crimes, EXCEPT he cannot pardon himself."
Not true. There is nothing that says a President cannot pardon themselves, unless they are impeached.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
"The balance of opinion seems to be that the President has the power to pardon criminal contempt."
One of Trumps tactics has been (and seemingly still is) to sign so many executive orders that no one, especially not Congress, can possibly spend the time to deal with them in any meaningful manner, eg by rescinding or making changes to them. Maybe the judiciaries only way to fight back is to issue many and multiple charges/convictions/contempt rulings against Trumps minions that he has to spend all his time signing pardons?
All the federal policing systems (FBI, US Marshal Service etc) are part of the Administration. If SCOTUS ordered the arrest of Trump and the Department of Justice said NO then there would be nothing that SCOTUS could do other than ask Congress to impeach Trump - given the current Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate any impeachment attempt would be certain to fail.
> If SCOTUS ordered the arrest of Trump and the Department of Justice said NO then there would be nothing that SCOTUS could do
Other than by doing this they end the United states as a going concern
If there is no rule of law other than what the president says - how do you do business, how do you run courts, how do you do trade?
Ending the USA as a democracy seems to be the aim of the MAGA Republican politicians - they seem to envy the personal power that Putin has.
As I said in another forum, if the Trump administration openly defies an order from SCOTUS without getting punished, then the US constitution and its laws will join the Charter of the League of Nations as dead historical documents.
"given the current Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate any impeachment attempt would be certain to fail."
It depends on how many large businesses are impacted by what DJT is doing. Those congresscritters are sensitive to how their sponsors are fairing as it's very easy for those sponsors to switch parties or politicians with their "campaign contributions".
Yeah, they don't set international trade policy. That's an Article II power. For good reason too. Here in the UK that's a power held by the PM (though normally delegated to a minister) for the exact same reason. Trump was elected to create trade policy, and his views on trade were well known and understood by the electorate. Contrary to the filing this isn't even vaguely ultra vires.
"Enjoin Agency Defendants (and all of their officers, employees, agents, servants, attorneys, and others acting in concert with them or subject to their control or direction) from taking any action to implement or enforce President Trump’s IEEPA Tariff Orders;" isn't a power a district court in the US has which all but guarantees this is going down in flames one way or another - and Trump can take this directly to SCOTUS.
When will we realize California really shouldn't be allowed to govern itself anymore? It's demonstrated that multiple times, and here we are again. Tariffs are not up to the states, California gets no say in this at all. We should let Florida or Texas take over governing the state instead
California isn't saying it should have a say in the tariffs. It's alleging that the Trump administration is over-reaching in it's use of executive orders to unilaterally impost wide ranging tariffs based on the administrations claim of emergency powers and that even in those extreme circumstances, the Executive MUST confer with and gain the agreement of Congress. California is making the claim because they see the administrations actions as harming the entire US, not just themselves.
Whether you agree or not with that is up to you, but at least it's more accurate than your knee-jerk comment that strongly implies you did not read the entire article before posting.
...of Andrew Jackson's infamous (and probably apocryphal) saying, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
On the other hand, our beloved Congress has delegated its power to make war, set policy, and regulate things to the Presidency. Why not tariffs too?
If Elon wants to shrink the federal government's power, I know a good place to start... :)
Restore States Rights
Is it working ?
Appears to be working more and more, California will be the first state to go AGAINST the pro bono teams who will want to lose because they were hoodwinked by Trump, that will case by case move power back out to the states. Something the Civil War was fought over. And lost by the South
It sounds like California is brain dead, crowing about how smart they are as usual
US to impose tariffs of up to 3,521% on south-east Asia solar panels
