Markets not surprised. 10-year Treasury yield rises modestly.
By Wolf Richter for WOLF STREET.
The tariffs Trump imposed by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, both the “reciprocal” tariffs designed to reduce the trade deficit, and the tariffs designed to reduce fentanyl trafficking out of China, Mexico, and Canada, got struck down in the Supreme Court by a 6-3 vote, released today. The three dissenters were Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanough.
Over half of the tariff revenues have been generated by the IEEPA tariffs. The rest of Trump’s tariffs, based on different laws, were not before the Court.
The administration has said in the past that if these tariffs under IEEPA were ruled illegal, it would switch tariffs to various other tariff acts, including those it has already invoked for its other tariffs.
The ruling removes Trump’s favorite negotiating tool that he used widely to push companies and countries to invest in the US and to achieve diplomatic goals.
The ruling rejected the argument brought forth by the Trump administration that IEEPA implicitly gave the President the power to levy those tariffs.
“Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion.
Allowing the administration’s legal reasoning to stand “would replace the longstanding executive-legislative collaboration over trade policy with unchecked Presidential policymaking…. Congress seldom effects such sea changes through ‘vague language,’” Roberts wrote.
The justices had seemed broadly skeptical during the arguments in November about Trump’s authority under IEEPA to impose the tariffs.
The ruling did not include language on whether or not the government would have to refund those IEEPA tariffs. Over 1,000 companies have reportedly sued or joined suits against the government over the tariffs in order to secure any potential refunds, including Costco, Toyota, Bumble Bee Foods, Revlon, Kawasaki, BYD, Goodyear, Revlon, etc.
In his dissent, Kavanaugh said: “Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U. S. Treasury. The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument.”
Markets not surprised.
The 10-year Treasury yield has ticked up only 2 basis points so far, to 4.10%, which it might have done anyway. It seems the Treasury market is only mildly ruffled, it at all, by the prospect that a substantial portion of revenues for the government would either cease to flow, or would have to be replaced with other tariffs, while the threat and “mess” over refunds – which would require additional borrowing by the government – will hang over the market perhaps for years.
The stock market hasn’t budged much. The Dow is down a hair, the S&P 500 up just 0.3% at the moment and the Nasdaq up 0.5%, about the same before the ruling was released.
Enjoy reading WOLF STREET and want to support it? You can donate. I appreciate it immensely. Click on the mug to find out how:
“I have the right to destroy the country but I can’t charge a single dollar” listen to DJT speech, that just came out of his mouth maybe twice
When are people going to quit posting “Trump said” stuff here????
I thought It was appropriate for the topic, supreme courts does this Trump does that and says this in response to supreme court. Cause and effect. I thought it added to the discussion, of where we are going with our markets and as a nation. You are in charge Wolf, it’s your site. Pardon if offended you or your viewers. Money pays attention to what the POTUS says and does.
That line you cited contains nothing that said what he will do. Nothing. It was just a lament!
Trump DID say some things about what he will do, including imposing global 10% tariffs, based on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (after 150 days, they’ll require congressional approval) on top of the existing legal tariffs.
But you didn’t mention that, though that would have been useful for you to mention and would have contributed to the usefulness of the comments.
You must have missed the part where one of the dissenting judges listed all the avenues the administration can pursue to accomplish the same objective.
From the opinion of dissenting justice Kavanaugh:
“The decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case—albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require. Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338). In essence, the Court today concludes that the President checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs.”
Hey Delusional, how about some context? Or are you just some corporate media shill?
Refreshing to read the words that actually come out of Trump’s mouth instead of the usual cleaned up version that makes him sound sane. You are quick to criticize all the lame brain verbiage that comes out of Wall Street, but you give the gobbledygook that flows from the Executive Branch a pass.
Another option..Congress could approve the tariffs. Why have they not?? Won’t pass? Yes, it is a mess.
Congress is and has long been completely in the pocket of Corporate America, which is why we have these huge trade deficits in the first place. Only Corporate America benefitted from pumping up its profit margins by sending production to cheap labor overseas and by using US tax laws to shelter foreign production from US income taxes by running them through low-tax jurisdictions, such as Ireland. They’re all doing it, and Congress encourages them to do it.
“Congress is and has long been completely in the pocket of Corporate America”
1,000% agreed. And it’s not just Congress.
IMHO – both parties are in the back pocket of Corporate America.
It’s sickening. After this ruling today, I have accepted the death of the US. It’s over.
I’m old, I hope I die before it happens…
What… are You stuck here in America ? My Great Grandparents came here in 1916 from Mojdez Crnagora for a better life.
There is a whole world out there to explore.
Doom talk will get One nowhere.
Have a fantastic weekend.
When the average American reads this, I think the feeling is ‘what do I care, I like my cheap Chinese imports’.
I understand that the country is better off overall, but what’s in it for the individual — or how do you explain to an individual — how they personally or directly benefit from onshoring? I have some thoughts, such as perhaps the gov generated more rev and therefore can cut individual taxes, but curious on how you go about explaining this when it comes up in conversations?
you’re not getting “cheap imports” – you’re getting fat profit margins for corporate America. They didn’t offshore to save you money, lol, they offshored to fatten up their own profit margins by bringing down their labor and tax costs.
@Better for everyone? a US made products may cost a little more, but it will probably last longer than one made in China. I read something about a guy getting a US made iron as a wedding gift in the 1950’s. It still worked but when the cord was wearing out after 60 year rather than get a new cord he got a new Chinese made iron at Target and it sopped working after three years
I guess I’m a contrarian on this thread, but I think you are spot on about the average American benefitting from “Cheap Imports”. No doubt Wolf is right that it also was about larger profit margins for companies(and union busting), but the price of TV’s, iPhones, and everything else is also cheaper for those of us who didn’t lose our factory jobs. Reverse this, and onshore everything, and today’s 3-5% inflation will be the good old days. Are voters willing to pay substantially more to bring the jobs back?? I think this is the big flaw in this approach to bringing manufacturing back, which is a noble goal, but like fixing the budget deficit, any responsible solution will involve pain. Not sure people are willing to go through that voluntarily unfortunately, and it will probably take a crash to correct the imbalances. We’ve painted ourselves into a corner in America in so many ways.
Willy K
“Reverse this, and onshore everything,”
Good lordie. NOBODY is talking about manufacturing EVERYTHING in the US. These reductio ad absurdum arguments are getting very old.
One of my good friends is a gamer. He is a genius at strategy.
In the complex “civilization” development and conflict games he notes: the winner is always the one who has the advantage in PRODUCTION.
By gutting our manufacturing industries for generations, we are squarely back footed in this aspect.
Fortunately we are food and energy independent. The military industrial complex is still somewhat onshore. However, as many people have observed: we can’t produce chips.
Taiwan has the market cornered on the legacy knowledge and facilities infrastructure required to produce the things that make the technological world whizz and chirp.
Silicon Valley is just a small outpost in comparison.
No Wolf. There are huge deficits because of over spending via debt. The same overspending that bloats us manufacturing now. Debt is the only thing left. The industrial revolution is over. AI??? Please. Its a scam.
@ Gregory Bott
It seems the debt market doesn’t much care about our spending. The bond vigilantes are hanging out with the drunken sailors at the bar.
“Congress is and has long been completely in the pocket of Corporate America” – Yes!
When the corporate workers are starving they will no choice but to eat the rich. I sure hope they taste like chicken.
Turns out, George Carlin was correct after all…
Well said. If I may attempt to expand on it a little, R’s and D’s are basically the same party on economics because the Fed allows them to be. Everything is just a bidding war. Congress gives corporations tax perks because they can always paper over the lower tax receipts. Deficits haven’t mattered.
As for this episode with tariffs, now the Treasury has the money and others just own claims to that money. Advantage Treasury.
The truth is somewhere in between. Plenty of workers in non-manufacturing sectors benefitted from the economic efficiency.
I’m not arguing with you though, I agree that way to much of the benefit went to corporations. Some of the tax issues you mention should have been the first thing to get fixed.
We’re not really cleaning up the system though, we’re adding bloat/inefficacy/confusion.
Congress has historically been more pro Tariff than POTUS. Congress represents smaller segments of the country that can see disproportionate benefit from Tariffs (you can absolutely get corruption in a different way from this version of the world). Steel tariffs in the old day won your seat in the rust belt. Neoliberal POTUS has the stopping block.
I work in manufacturing that hasn’t offshored a single employee, we’re 100% American and source all our pressure vessels and other structural steel from American manufacturers. Industrial policy would help more than tariffs.
Make trade school free. Keep cost down for MechE/ChemE engineers to encourage the best and brightest. We’re getting carved up by tariffs on equipment, but the HTS codes for our products are all exempt, so no help on the product side.
Most importantly, things like induced demand could really get industries off the ground.
How does one make trade school free? Someone(s) pay.
While your thought process is localized to a specific interest group it still entails income re-distribution as gov’t policy. That is fine but make it clear.
Beyond middle class income arguments for re-industrialization, the primary argument has been national security. That one seems more cogent to me – and it removes the politics, somewhat, over who is getting what cut.
they call them divdends and capital appreciations. The people that have bought the stocks of these companies are the owners you speak of.
Sorta.
I owned some stock in a Russian oil company prior to Feb 2022. Now it’s listed as a number of shares on my brokerage account with no right to buy/sell, no right to declare a capital loss, no gov’t policy or brokerage clue about the way ahead, no Congress critter (my Congressman) who will stake itself to an answer. In short, “ownership” for that equity was a chimera.
Rights? Bahahaha!
Thank you, Wolf. While it always turns toward divisive politics, it has always been—and will always be—about hiding behind so-called “shareholder concerns.” There is never a single discussion about performance-driven, incentive-based compensation packages across all levels of capitalism. The focus remains solely on cost, ignoring the broader damage caused by this concept.
Divide and Rule!! That’s what British did brilliantly in India for 153 years. British divided India based on religion and democratic and republican parties are doing it on the their ideologies. It’s a same tactic. We have gotten used to hate other so much that we blindly follow our side and pendulm never lands in the middle. We all know laws are made by congress and you need 2 parties to make laws and both the parties have relentlessly worked for corporations interest for decades but we refuse to question our vote and choice. This is just not going to change. Just accept it. We really need a president like George Washington who had no party affiliation and then we hope he will make decisions in interest of people and country but there is a higher likelihood of me getting a iRobot to drive me to work than we getting a second George Washington.
US workers benefited from off-shoring because white collar and “unproductive” (in the Marxist sense — transport, packaging, warehousing) jobs could have their wages effectively subsidized by the super-exploitation of third world workers. Yes, manufacturing workers were screwed, tossed off into the industrial reserve army of labor, but the vast majority of these workers re-trained and found new jobs, or exited the labor force by retiring. Many hundreds of thousands died of deaths of despair, of course, but that’s capitalism for you. The alternative would be a profit squeeze, class struggle, and ultimately, a proletarian revolution.
The tariffs would never reshore manufacturing and return us to the golden age of the post-WW2 Fordist class compromise. Even tariff-loving heterodox economists like Ha Joon Chang see this much. Manufacturing that can’t be done cheaply by third world labor forces gets automated, and automation increases the organic composition of capital, reducing profit margins. The only way forward for reshoring would be the immiseration of the US workforce in absolute terms, to make it relatively profitable to produce here. Maybe that’s why southern states are hollowing out labor rights, allowing children to work in slaughterhouses, as Arkansas did a couple years back, gutting the welfare state and workplace safety regulations.
Are corporations wrong to chase profit margins? Comrade Richter, that is the essence of the capitalist mode of production! As a red, I’d welcome you into our ranks (you’re a smart guy, we need people like you!), but I doubt that’s your angle.
Hi Mr. Wolf,
Quick question, what happens to the excess money Corp America earns? Is it not taxed, spent or reinvested? Would this not contribute to USA welfare in any real terms?
exactly! both parties have sold out American workers for global corporate profits and also undermined national security. I say this as someone who has benefitted from the arrangement- it is one of the least reported, most propagandized and most consequential actions of the past 30 years.
IDK if they have the votes.
Also we must remember politics is not about results, it is about blame. The president can now blame the SC for falling manufacturing employment in 2025. They stifled his plan to “bring the jobs back (r)”. So who isn’t happy with this ruling?
The administration can also be blamed for incompetently imposing tariffs under a law that wasn’t intended for that.
I doubt this ruling will have much affect. The executive branch can unilaterally suspend imports from a company or country. It’s an easy response to a demand for refund of the tariffs… You want the refund? You can no longer do business in the US.
American companies (the importer) pays the tariff. LOL!!!! Yeah, I am sure that will go over real well.
LMFAO!!!!
Trump says he has backup plans to keep tariffs. Looks like the bond market believes him, or just doesn’t care. Otherwise rates would be moving a lot higher today than they have been, everything else being equal. Tariff revenue is a very small percentage of our total debt.
It seems this ruling would make it much easier to litigate against the “various other tariff acts” and win those as well.
Not really, those other acts specifically say “tariffs” and have been challenged before. The new tactics the IEEPA ruling is forcing will just be a little less convenient for the executive branch.
The real issue is that congress has historically abdicated its responsibilities to the executive branch. If either side was interested in fixing things, they would roll that back, but neither side wants to be restricted when they are in control.
I’m looking at a bear call spread on TLT at 90/91 and expiring next week. The treasury market is slow moving compared to stocks, but eventually incorporates news. This ruling means:
-More treasury issuance to cover bigger than expected deficits.
-Possible unexpected liabilities when the tariffs have to be refunded.
-Suddenly worsening debt to tax revenue and debt coverage metrics for the US Govt, possibly resulting in more downgrades.
Of course, this will stretch out over months as the admin tries different legal approaches. But bonds will eventually price in the facts on the ground. The SC has ruled. The administration’s presumably best legal footing has failed, and they’re stalling now.
Bond yields will also face upward pressure from today’s hot PCE inflation reading. Wolf, I hope you’ll write your thoughts about how for the past 3 months CPI has been trending down to 2.4% annualized while PCE has been trending up to 2.9% annualized. Either the data quality has deteriorated after all the layoffs, or one agency is more politically influenced than the other! Either way is a discouragement to treasury buyers.
Short TLT.
check out the 5 year chart of TNX. The 200MA is 4.006
It’s taken 4 years for then TNX to return to the 200MA.
Should get exciting for a while.
oh, and to the same for TLT. Something has to give…one way or the other.
Yes, the devaluation trade is still very much in play…
@ChrisB
“PCE has been trending up to 2.9% annualized”
You mean 4.8% (.4×12)
I read a couple months ago that someone associated with the administration was buying up the tariff receipts from companies.
So now if those tariffs get refunded they make a ton of money..
Pretty funny hearing Kavanaugh say “…that process is likely to be a ‘mess’…” since it is his (and his brethren’s) fault for waiting so long to rule.
He probably needed to find time on his calendar to consult with his frat bros, PJ, Squee, and Tobin before ruling. Seriously though, I think more blame goes to the guy who created all this chaos and unpredictability for corporate America on such flimsy legal grounds.
Presidents had invoked IEEPA more than 70 times since 1977 — from the aftermath of September 11 to confrontations with Iran and North Korea — a history Kavanaugh said made this case “dramatically different” from past major questions cases where the Court ruled against the government.
I tend to think the threat from Canada was “dramatically different” from Iran and North Korea.
In any of those other examples you mention, were tariffs imposed? Or were those actions focused on seizing assets, blocking transactions, and imposing financial sanctions?
“President Donald Trump on Friday said the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that struck down his sweeping tariffs was “deeply disappointing” and that he was “absolutely ashamed” by the justices who ruled against him in the 6-3 decision.” Trump has a tendency to appoint unqualified people, especially women, to important positions of power (Coney Barret, Noem, Bondi, for example). One would think he might have learned more from his first administration where he gave his imbecile daughter way too much power. Hubris is dangerous.
Wolf – if Trump replaces these tariffs with others under different laws, what effect does that have on tariffs already collected by the US gov?
Can those other tariff laws be applied retroactively? Or is that unconstitutional?
Good, congress passes taxes.
I think he can lower them to 10% and make them stick via another rule.
The case for tariffs is compelling, but I have been stunned at the inability of the administration to articulate it to the country. Plus their implementation has been messy and confusing.
Plan B is supposedly 10% on all imports. Why wasn’t that plan A? So much easier to calculate. Should be viewed as more of a fair assessment. Minimal pushback since it’s a drop in the bucket to most importers. I would argue it’s still too low, but it’s a start.
The government needs to raise money to fix our ugly budget deficits. Our middle class needs a hand because they’re in constant competition with foreign labor with which they cannot compete while living here. Corporate America can’t exit the race to the bottom that is offshoring without a change in the legal framework. Once one competitor succeeds manufacturing overseas, sll others in an industry are compelled to follow suit or gradually lose market share.
Some tariffs could be good if done wisely. Requires a long term strategic plan.
It was not done wisely. It would require some smart guys and actual patriots (not self centred billioners) around Trump. It is not going to happen.
Nobody has explained how tariffs are supposed to raise revenue *and* bring back manufacturing (and, continue to act as a cudgel that Trump can use for his personal vendettas). If the manufacturers come back then they stop paying tariffs, and vice versa. Meanwhile, the totally chaotic, arbitrary and capricious nature of this whole thing is dissuading companies from committing to anything, and as a result nothing is really changing. Manufacturing is down and the trade deficit is up. If anything, this is turning into a worst-of-all-worlds situation for consumers: they’re paying the tariffs without getting the jobs back, the tariffs aren’t even fixing the deficit if they have to be refunded, and consumers probably won’t be getting those refunds.
Well if they bring back manufacturing that helps employment which raises tax revenue while also helping lower the trade deficit.
Agreed. It is still too early to tell as well. In our industry, folks rushed to pour product across the border before the tariffs went into effect. Several in our industry did exactly that. Plenty of companies are still selling pre-tariff product and waiting this mess out to see what happens next.
“If the manufacturers come back then they stop paying tariffs, and vice versa.”
manufacturing in the US contributes enormously to the economy with its primary, secondary, and tertiary effects, and it causes money to circulate in the US, and along the way generating large amounts of income taxes and local taxes, far larger than the tariffs would collect if this production were imported. This is why manufacturing in the US is so important.
It’s tough to articulate it to the country when the Wall Street shills control the media.
What is shocking is the same politicians
who scream for higher corporate tax rates also scream about how tariffs are
inflationary. It seems they just want to
tax corporations domiciled in the US and
avoid upsetting our trading partners.
The system is being gamed to fleece
the productive class.
Gorsuch’s concurring opinion acusing the majority of talking out both sides is worth a read if you need a laugh.
Refunds on any imports that entered in May 2025 or later will not be messy. Just file a Post Summary Correction and wait for an automatic refund plus 6-7% interest. The money may take months to be paid, but interest will be accruing the whole time.
Earlier imports may require protests and/or litigation, but a recent favorable ruling from the Court of International Trade estopping Customs from taking certain positions in litigation should ensure that everyone eventually gets a full refund plus interest.
‘In his dissent, Kavanaugh said: “Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U. S. Treasury. The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument.”
No argument with ‘mess’ but I’m surprised a Scotus judge wouldn’t focus on the legality or even the merits of the tariffs, just what a nuisance it is to undo them. If he thinks off -shoring of manufacturing is an emergency threat to the US, requiring the Admin to assume emergency powers, he should say so in his dissent.
Decisions of law usually deal with principal and precedent not inconvenience.
You can read the entire opinion that Kavanaugh wrote. It’s many pages long with lots of legal details. It’s part of the whole opinion package that I linked in the article. Click on the opinion. Then search with your browser’s search function for Kavanaugh, and you’ll see it.
He also wrote in his opinion:
“The decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case—albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require. Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338). In essence, the Court today concludes that the President checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs.”
Trump, Lutnick and Greer (not Bessent): tariffs are about commerce.
Chief justice Roberts three months ago: tariff tax foreign co, therefore
it’s a matter for the executive branch, not congress. Tariffs between
states, in the US, are forbidden. Tariffs on foreigner penalize them,
give them incentives to produce in the US and hire American workers.
When exactly did John Roberts say that? If he ever said that, it appears that he changed his mind in a big way and said very much the opposite with this ruling. Perhaps you are confusing justice Roberts with someone else.
Why is Kavanaugh referring to the mess that would be created by tariff refunds? Such considerations should be irrelevant. Courts should be issuing opinions based solely on law, not the degree of hardship that might be faced by those who violate the law.
I support tariffs, but I find Kavanaugh’s comment inappropriate.
You can read the entire opinion that Kavanaugh wrote. It’s many pages long with lots of legal details. It’s part of the whole opinion package that I linked in the article. Click on the opinion. Then search with your browser’s search function for Kavanaugh, and you’ll see it.
He also wrote in his opinion:
“The decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case—albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require. Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338). In essence, the Court today concludes that the President checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs.”
True. However an Constitution Originalist would argue that the Founders made it pretty clear that their modified monarchy ( one person, mono, is the executive branch) was to be ‘cabin’ed and confined’ by not having the ‘power of the purse’
Apart from the decision and whatever ‘work arounds’ can nullify it, note the disrespect towards the SCOTUS; ‘they should be ashamed of themselves’ similar to that shown the Federal Reserve. Will members of the majority now be investigated for crimes of mortgage fraud etc.?
Yup admin loves faafo well i am interested in the opposite.
Attack the attackers. Tariffs will stay, for whatever federal statutes. They will protect the gov from law suits.
Hi Wolf,
Pedant here and offering nothing else of value other than to say you’ve spelt Kavanaugh wrong in the opening paragraph. I only noticed this because you’ve spelt it correctly I think further down. I’m from the UK and the name is odd so had to check. Best wishes
So the substantive kavanaugh argument is, let him do an illegal thing because he could always just do a legal thing instead and get the same result? Kavanaugh is a clown. That is a clown argument.
That’s your interpretation of what Kavanagh said. It’s not what he said.
Hooray for refunds that the companies will pocket. Prices won’t drop either. Seems like a win for corporate America because it’s highly unlikely after 150 Congress will approve the tariffs.
Nor will these companies pass on the refunds to their customers, LOL, they’ll just keep them.
Bessent said the refunds, if they actually happen, “it’s just going be the ultimate corporate welfare.”
He also said that litigation could drag out for months or years, and he doubts they will happen in the end. So we’ll see. Some people here said the refunds are clear-cut and simple to get, but that’s not what the lawyers are saying. This is going to get litigated long and hard.
The supreme Court struck down president Trump’s tariffs because only Congress has the power to tax. Yet the Supreme Court, specifically justice Roberts, allowed Obamacare to continue even though the tax in Obamacare originated in the Senate.
Our supreme Court has a hypocrite leading it.
Wolf,
Pardon my French, but one thing I have learned from all these debates (both here and elsewhere) is that the United States International Trade Commission is worth about as much as “tits on a bears behind”.