I'm John Batchel with my good colleague, Professor Richard Epstein of the Civitas Institute,

teachers law at NYU and the University

of Chicago. The case pending is that of tariffs. The president asserted on Liberation Day that the

trade deficit was an emergency and therefore tariffs were to be applied according to his reporting in order to oblige our

colleagues and competitors to close the trade deficit. That argument qualified before the

court now and the court to decide I'm told whether or not a trade deficit is an emergency.

Richard, what way is the court going to go and what does it mean for the tariffs?

I think they're going to strike the tariff down. They will do it under one of two grounds.

They will either do the narrow version of which it says that if you look at IEPA,

that is a governing statute on this.

What it basically does, it allows for terrorists only at the edges, but not as a major source.

Or the other view, which I think is more accurate, is IEPA was a device of regulation for which

had no role whatsoever.

1970s, IEPA, yes.

Yes, that's right.

The international powers, what is the Economic Emergency Act.

I think they'll do that.

I also think on economic grounds that Trump describe him as laughably ignorant as to be too

kind to the myth.

Because what has happened is he has this view about reciprocity

as being necessary for fairness, but it turns out it's extremely difficult to have zero

balances between any two nations. System-wide, pluses and minuses tend to cancel out. But in any

...