Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. Our covera Joe of the Trump terariff decision continues with a closer look at the Supreme Court's majority opinion, which zeroed in on what it called a unilateral and transformative expansion of the president's authority.
Writing for the Plurality, Chief Justice John Roberts said, quote that in iipa's half century of existence, no president has invoked the statute to impose any teriffts, let alone tariffts of this magnitude, and that the lack of historical president, coupled with the breadth of authority that the president claimed, suggested that the teriffs extended beyond his legitimate reach. That issue a core part of the three lawsuits that led to this case, including the lawsuit pressed by twelve Democratic
state attorneys general, including from California's Rob Bonta. He joins us right now to talk a little bit more about this decision. All right, First, what was your initial reaction at ten am of Eastern time, that is, when you heard about the decision?
Not surprising what I expect, having been in the courtroom at the US Supreme Court for the oral argument and very affirming and Most of all, I feel that it's an important amount of relief that's being delivered for the American people, including Californians, for consumers who are paying higher prices, for workers who've lost their jobs, for businesses, including small mom and pops who have struggled, some have shuddered their businesses never to open again.
So this is.
Important relief delivered to them. And it calls out trumpson lawfulness for what it is. He literally acted illegally to raise prices for the American people after saying that he was going to lower prices on day one. It was a lie his statement, and it was improper and inappropriate. What he has done. He owes many businesses a refund and pay up.
Well, I'm curious about that. I mean, your governor, the California governor, Gavin Newsom has already weighed in on the one hundred and seventy plus billion dollars that have been collected from consumers and companies. Do you think there's any real legitimate chance that those companies, those consumers are actually going to see a refund of any portion of that.
Absolutely, you do. And the opinion could have said that we are making a decision that is prospective only that going forward, Trump can no longer use these unlawful tariffs. They didn't say that, which makes it very clear that retro active, retrospective relief is on the table, and there's a pathway to do this. You go to the Court of International Trade if you're a business and importer that had to pay the unlawful tariffs, and you seek a
refund through what's called the refund to action. And typically generally and it would be fair and just here if your money is unlawfully withheld from you, if you had to pay something based on an unlawful tariff, you should get interest on it. So I think you're going to see a lot of refund actions being brought against the Trump administration for these unlawful tariffs that have been struck down.
Well, is that something that California as a state plans to do. I mean, you know, as we go through this process when it comes to demanding refunds, I mean, is that action that California would.
Take very potentially, Yes, you know, we had a case in the North District of California that we are now will be transferred to or commenced in the Court of International Trade. Which the US Supreme Court today said is the appropriate court, and that's where we could seek a refund action for California, for the state of California, not the businesses, not the who paid the unlawful tariff. So to the extent that California has been hurt by these tariffs,
had to pay higher prices because of these tariffs. Yes, we could pursue a refund action in the Court of International Trade, and we're discussing all of our options now.
Well.
We will certainly keep an eye out there for any action. I do want to ask about the statement that you issued following the Supreme Court decision. You wrote that the Trump administration's a legal and chaotic terraf regime has come to an end. Of course, in the hours since, we've heard from the President directly saying that, you know, he still plans to pursue tariffs. It's just AIPA that was ruled against here today. And with that in mind, I mean,
how do you see this evolving? You think about all the different sections that he can tap, it seems like when it comes to the terriff regime, it's actually far from over.
I think he'll try again, and you know, in some of his statements today were very remarkable, almost claiming victory in the face of very clear defeat. I mean, this is an embarrassing loss in front of the US Supreme Court on his you know, key policy proposal of his administration. It was unlawful and it was not even close. It was clearly unlawful, a six' three loss in front of THE. U. S Supreme. Court and he very may well try to
implement other tariffs through other. Pathways those were always available to. Him to be, clear there's prerequisites for those tariffs to be, implemented there's limits on those, tariffs there's limits in duration in a. Mouth so we'll see what he, does and we'll. Assess we've brought fifty eight lawsuits in less than fifty eight weeks against A trump administration for repeated illegal, conduct and so we will assess whether any of his actions
going forward in the tariff's space or lawful or. Not and if he breaks the lag in and Hurts california, again we'll take him to.
Court, Well i'm just, sorry just real, quickly, Though. ROB i, mean looking at the dissenting, opinions and particularly The kavanaugh opinion who explicitly in his words said the president did have the. Authority does that become the basis for The trump administration to move forward with something even under the construct of A.
Epa, WELL apa is off the, table so he can longer USE aiba to impost tariffs he. Tried he. Lost THE apa doesn't mention the word tariffs has never been used in nearly fifty years of its existence to impost. Tariffs but, yeah The kavanaugh descent did sort of set forth a blueprint That trump might want to pursue in terms of other statutes that do provide the opportunity for
him potentially to implement. Terrorists but the POINT i was, making and the majority makes us, too is that those other statutes don't give full discretion to im implement and impose all the tariffs that he tried to impose UNDER, apa and he tried to impose tariffs against every single one of our trade partners under A. Epa those other statutes have, Limits they have, Prerequisites they have limits in, duration limits in. Amount so he may take action using
those other, statutes but he will be. Limited all, right have.
To leave it. There really appreciate your. Time that Is California Attorney General Rob bonta