58: Veronique de Rugy critiques the administration's legal argument at the Supreme Court that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose tariffs. She argues the term "emergency" is used too loosely, defining 50

The John Batchelor Show

John Batchelor

Arts, Books, News, Society & Culture

4.5 • 2.8K Ratings

🗓️ 7 November 2025

⏱️ 9 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Veronique de Rugy critiques the administration's legal argument at the Supreme Court that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose tariffs. She argues the term "emergency" is used too loosely, defining 50 years of trade deficits as an emergency, potentially granting the President immense, unchecked power to tax. Tariffs are taxes, which Congress should control. De Rugy notes tariffs are already causing damage by raising prices for consumers or forcing companies to cut profits and investment.

1882 NYSE

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	This is CBS Eye on the World.
0:08.6	Here's John Batchelor.
0:10.6	Emergency Economic Powers Act passed by Congress in 1977 is at the center of the news in Washington, these shutdown days.
0:21.0	And I welcome Veronique de Reggie of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University,
0:25.9	writing her column for creator's syndicate,
0:28.6	looking at what we know to be the administration's point of view,
0:32.8	invoking the AEPA in order to explain the tariffs that we've seen imposed and taken back and cut in half and redoubled,
0:43.6	all manner of directions since April of this year.
0:47.5	Veronika, a very good evening to you.
0:48.9	The matter was presented to the Supreme Court in oral arguments this week.
0:54.6	John Sauer, Solicitor General representing the administration's position.
0:59.3	And the defendant, well, the defendant, the people who brought the case were also in the room,
1:05.3	but I'm keen on looking at the court.
1:08.7	Three voices, Ms. Jackson, Ms. Sotomayor, and Ms. Kagan were clearly disposed against the administration's interpretation.
1:18.3	Three justices, Mr. Alito, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Gorsuch looked to be disposed for Mr. Sauer's argument.
1:26.7	Not Gorsuch. All right, I'll hold back then. Mr. Sauerg. Not Gorsuch.
1:28.8	All right, I'll hold back then.
1:31.1	Mr. Thomas and Mr. Alito.
1:32.8	I'll put Gorsuch in the unknown category.
1:35.6	Mr. Roberts, Ms. Barrett, and Mr. Kavanaugh seem to be, in some fashion,
1:41.5	dubious about the administration's interpretation.
1:46.7	So I'm keen on your interpretation as opposed to the courts.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from John Batchelor, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of John Batchelor and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.