If you're not reading what Paul Glenchur writes, you should be.
Yesterday, the Court of International Trade (CIT) dismantled President Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs, ruling they violated the limits of his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
The decision marks a serious legal setback for the administration and a major vindication for Glenchur, who had warned of exactly this outcome more than a month ago.
“He started talking about this on The Call back in April,” Hedgeye CEO Keith McCullough said on this morning’s episode of The Call.
“Even as late as last week on May the 22nd. That’s what his note said."
"If you don’t subscribe to The Call, you didn’t read the note. That’s not my problem. It still happened,” McCullough said.
For those who missed it the first time, Glenchur’s April 7th Note laid out the legal risks of the tariffs in precise detail.
Glenchur's argument? The law was built for true emergencies, not trade imbalances or fentanyl policy.
Congress had already provided clear tariff-specific laws, like the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974, which include procedural guardrails Trump was attempting to bypass.
Instead, Trump had leaned on a narrow provision meant for regulating imports during genuine national emergencies.
“[The judges] kept it pretty narrow. Said, look, the statute says you can do this. It doesn’t say you can do what you’re doing—and so it’s illegal,” Glenchur noted.
Though the administration is already pushing for a stay—that is, asking the court to temporarily pause the ruling while it appeals—the legal foundation is shaky.
The CIT’s ruling wasn’t political or sweeping, it was textbook statutory interpretation.
As Glenchur put it: the judges simply said: "This law doesn’t say what you want it to say."
It all boils down to the fact that “there are other statutes that deal with tariffs,” Glenchur explained.
“They just have burdens… limits on the duration of tariffs, the size of tariffs. Things [Trump] wanted to avoid by using the Emergency Economic Powers Act.”
The Bottom Line: The legal strategy behind Liberation Day just hit a wall...The exact wall Paul Glenchur saw coming. And if you’ve been listening, you weren’t surprised.
