Well, howdy there, Internet people, it's Bell again.

So today, we're going to talk about Trump and peanut butter emergencies.

What an odd thing to say, right?

But that's the timeline we exist in.

That's part of actual news.

A small group of businesses made their arguments in front of the U.S.

International Court of Trade in Manhattan. A panel of three judges are currently weighing

whether or not to place a nationwide injunction against Trump's tariffs. The businesses

made their argument simply. Trump invoked a made-up emergency as justification

for his tariffs, so he could use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The Justice Department defended Trump's move with an even more easy-to-digest argument.

Mind your business.

I mean, it was more eloquent than that,

but they basically argued that the courts shouldn't second-guess Trump.

The case hinges on congressional intent.

Did Congress really mean to give the presidency basically unchecked power over tariffs?

Or is Trump misusing the law?

Trump's stated emergency is, quote, large and persistent trade deficits.

The businesses claim that the trade deficits are, quote, neither an emergency nor an unusual or extraordinary threat.

One of the interesting things is that this court hears about trade a lot. They probably have a

better understanding of trade deficits than most on the bench. I'm curious if their understanding

might influence their ruling here.

...