Oct 1, 2026 · 41 min
Tariffs, prosecutions and appointments test executive power
Trump's Tariffs & Trump's 'Enemies': Jack Smith, James Comey & Letitia James
Three legal disputes show how tariff authority, prosecutorial judgment and interim appointments can strain the limits of executive power.
- 1A trade court questioned whether Section 301 supports the tariffs and whether the administration’s forced-labor evidence is sufficient.
- 2Jack Smith defended the Trump prosecutions, while a flawed congressional accusation exposed the partisan theater surrounding his testimony.
- 3The Fourth Circuit weighed whether interim appointments can bypass Senate confirmation and what remedy follows from a defective appointment.
Don't miss
Senator Eric Schmidt’s accusation that Jack Smith lied about attending an Atlanta Hawks game collapsed after the hearing confused the Hawks with Iowa’s Hawkeyes.
The brief
A trade court is testing the administration’s global tariffs under Section 301, focusing on whether the statutory theory and evidence linking imports to forced labor can withstand scrutiny.
The judges’ questions raise a practical choice: allow the government to supplement a thin record or strike down tariffs built on an inadequate legal and evidentiary foundation.
Jack Smith defended prosecuting Donald Trump, but senators focused on subpoenas for lawmakers’ communications and a perjury accusation that collapsed over a basketball-game mix-up.
Harold Krent says the subpoenas may have reflected poor judgment without being clearly unlawful, while the hearing illustrated how congressional investigations can become partisan retaliation.
The Fourth Circuit is considering whether successive interim appointments let the administration evade Senate confirmation, and whether defective indictments can be repaired after the fact.