Tariffs Blocked. ICE Held in Contempt. Courts Are Fighting Back. (w/ Elliot Williams) | Illegal News

Following a Supreme Court decision, former President Trump attempted to impose 10% global tariffs. While presidents have some tariff authority under the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 122), this is limited to 15% for 150 days and requires 'large and serious balance of payment deficits.' Economists widely dispute that current global trade imbalances justify such tariffs, making them vulnerable to legal challenges. The host notes Trump's team previously dismissed this legal avenue, indicating a preference for 'ramming things through' over legal viability.

The Trade Act of 1974, Section 122, allows 15% tariffs for 150 days under specific economic conditions. Economists, including the IMF, do not see the current global trade imbalance as justifying these tariffs. Trump's own legal team previously dismissed this approach. Speaker Mike Johnson acknowledged Congress would not pass such tariffs.

The FCC chairman issued new guidance in January 2024, reinterpreting the 1934 Communications Act's 'equal time' rule. This guidance now applies stricter rules to daytime and late-night television talk shows (e.g., The View, Stephen Colbert) regarding political candidate appearances, while explicitly exempting radio. This move is perceived as politically motivated to target liberal-leaning TV outlets, with the chairman using terms like 'fake news' to justify the distinction, despite the rule being largely outdated in the modern media landscape.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's guidance issued in January 2024. CBS lawyers advised Stephen Colbert not to air an interview with a Democratic Senate candidate. The FCC initiated an enforcement action against 'The View.' Carr's statement: 'If you're fake news, you're not going to qualify as the bonafide news exception.' Radio was explicitly exempted.

The Department of Justice, while part of the executive branch, traditionally operates with independence from White House political influence, particularly regarding prosecutorial and litigation decisions. This norm, established after Watergate, prevents the weaponization of the justice system. Actions like a president placing their image on the DOJ building or publicly directing prosecutions violate this tradition, creating an appearance of political control over law enforcement that undermines public trust and the rule of law.

Post-Watergate norms established a clear separation between DOJ decisions and White House management. Examples include White House staff being excluded from discussions on pending cases. The host and guest discuss the implications of a president's image on the DOJ building and public calls for prosecution.

A federal judge in Minnesota held an ICE attorney in civil contempt, imposing a $500/day fine, for repeatedly failing to comply with court orders. This included releasing a detainee in the wrong state, failing to return personal property, and ignoring court-mandated submissions. The judge noted a 'systematic pattern of behavior' from the administration and ICE's overwhelming caseload, which leads to a breakdown in basic legal compliance and a loss of judicial respect for government claims.

A Minnesota judge issued a civil contempt order against a government lawyer. Specific instances included releasing an individual in Texas instead of Minnesota, failure to return personal property (driver's license), and ignoring requests for status submissions. The attorney was a military lawyer on detail, handling 130 cases. Judge's quote: 'since the beginning of operation metro surge, the government has offered that excuse how busy they are to this court again and again and again...'