Vermont
The Supreme Court hears challenges to Trump’s tariffs with Vermont ties – VTDigger
This story is based on stories by Violet Jira published on Nov. 5, 2025 by NOTUS, one before and one after the oral arguments.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday related to the legality of President Donald Trump’s use of tariffs in a case that won’t just be deciding the fate of his trade policy, but also could redefine the limits of presidential economic power.
The hearing involved appeals in a pair of cases that challenge the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, including one with Vermont ties. Trump has used the law to bypass procedural norms and place extensive tariffs on enemies and trading partners alike without authorization from Congress.
READ MORE
One of the cases includes Terry Precision Cycling, or Terry Cycling, a women’s cycling apparel company, as one of five small business plaintiffs. The group sued Trump and his administration in the U.S. Court of International Trade in April. In May, a panel of three federal judges struck down most of the president’s tariffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also largely backed the plaintiffs. The case was combined with another brought by private organizations impacted by the tariffs in Wednesday’s arguments in the Supreme Court.
The court also heard from a representative of 12 attorneys general, including Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark, who sued on similar grounds.
During the arguments, Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the Trump administration’s actions — sometimes by contradicting the president.
Sauer faced a slew of skeptical inquiries from the justices who seemed to take issue with many of the Trump administration’s arguments, including that the president has broad authority to respond to international emergencies, Congress delegated the presidency this power, and tariffs are not taxes.
Since the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax, the claim that tariffs are not a tax was central to Sauer’s argument, despite the fact that the president has framed them as revenue-raising.
“We don’t contend that what’s being exercised here is the power to tax,” Sauer said. “It’s the power to regulate foreign commerce. These are regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue raising tariffs.”
Trump regularly says tariffs are making the country richer. And earlier this year, the White House floated using tariffs as a revenue raiser to offset the cost of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who spoke recently at the University of Vermont, made clear that she didn’t buy Sauer’s argument on tariffs versus taxes.
“You say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are,” she said. “They’re generating money from American citizens, revenue.”
 100vw, 1200px”/><figcaption class=)
‘Simply implausible’
How the justices decide the case will have major implications not just for Trump’s agenda but for how much unilateral power presidents have to regulate commerce.
During the arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch leaned heavily into the question of congressional authority. He seemed to take issue with the fact that it would be difficult for Congress to reclaim that authority should the Supreme Court give the Trump administration what it was asking for.
“Congress, as a practical matter, can’t get this power back once it’s handed it over to the president. It’s a one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives,” he argued.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed skeptical of the scope of the reciprocal tariffs Trump has placed on dozens of countries, allies and trading partners alike.
“Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain, France? I mean, I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy as are,” she asked.
The small businesses were represented by attorney Neal Katyal. He argued that tariffs are, in fact, a tax, and that the Trump administration was exceeding the authority Congress intended to give to the executive branch when it passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
“It’s simply implausible that in enacting IEEPA, Congress handed the president the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the American economy in the process, allowing him to set and reset tariffs on any and every product from any and every country at any and all times,” Katyal said.
“And as Justices Gorsuch and Barrett just said, this is a one-way ratchet,” he continued. “We will never get this power back if the government wins this case. What president wouldn’t veto legislation to rein this power in and pull out the tariff power?”
The Supreme Court has until the end of its term next summer to make a decision, but the case has so far been on an expedited track, leading some experienced court watchers to expect a decision before the end of the year.
Other routes for tariffs
The White House has projected confidence in its ability to win the case — press secretary Karoline Leavitt said officials believe the Supreme Court will rule in their favor. Still, contingency plans have long been in the works.
“The White House is always preparing for plan B,” she said at a briefing. “It would be imprudent of the president’s advisers not to prepare for such a situation. With that said, we are 100% confident in the president and his team’s legal argument and the merits of the law in this case, and we remain optimistic that the Supreme Court is going to do the right thing. The importance of this case cannot be overstated.”
Trump has used the threat of tariffs in matters far beyond trade. The administration used a tariff investigation to pressure Brazil over its decision to prosecute former President Jair Bolsonaro. Trump attempted to use trade negotiations to stop Canada from backing Palestinian statehood. The threat of steep tariffs has been an essential leverage point in his peace negotiations between countries like India and Pakistan, as well as Russia and Ukraine.
The Supreme Court’s decision could stymie all of this.
Administration officials have indicated that even if they lose the case, they would find another way to levy tariffs.
There are multiple legal avenues to enact tariffs. Top Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro has signaled the administration was considering use of Section 122 and then Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, if use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is deemed unlawful.
Multiple trade experts NOTUS spoke to said this would be the most plausible course of action for Trump to keep his tariffs alive if the court rules against him.
Peter Harrell, who served as senior director for international economics and competitiveness in the Biden White House, said “the most obvious choice” for the White House to temporarily maintain tariffs would be to invoke Section 122. That would allow tariffs of up to 15% for as long as 150 days on countries whose trade with the U.S. is unjustifiably imbalanced.
“That, to me, looks like the sort of obvious, immediate stop gap they could pull to keep many of their tariffs in place for a couple of months while they figure out what the longer term plan is,” he said.
Section 301 of the trade act allows an administration to launch investigations into specific countries and implement tariffs based on the results of that investigation. There are already active Section 301 investigations into China, Brazil and Nicaragua; the latter two were started under the administration of President Joe Biden. The Trump administration could begin more of them, but the investigations take months and again open the administration up to the possibility of lawsuits.
Over the past few months, the Trump administration has expanded its use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows him to put restrictions on the import of certain goods if they are found after an investigation to threaten national security.
But none of these powers is as expansive as the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, which the Trump administration has used to enact crushing tariffs with the stroke of a pen.
The International Economic Emergency Powers Act “only requires a finding of a national emergency, which is a more unilateral power within the president to make that determination,” said Everett Eissenstat, a partner at Squire Patton Boggs who represented the Trump administration on international trade matters as deputy director of the National Economic Council during Trump’s first term. “There’s no investigation, there’s no congressional consultation, it’s just a declaration of emergency, and that unleashes the power to regulate commerce, regulate importation.”
He added that there “were certainly more limitations” on Section 301 and Section 232.
If the Supreme Court were to rule in the Trump administration’s favor, it’s possible that the ruling wouldn’t just give the administration the legal go-ahead on current tariff policy, but open the door for the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to be used even more broadly than Trump is currently using it.
For the importers, business owners, consumers and taxpayers who are impacted by the president’s trade and tariff policy, a decision from the Supreme Court in either direction is unlikely to offer significant relief from the pressures of the Trump tariff economy.
“Unfortunately, if you’re a business, you can celebrate a Supreme Court win if that’s the way it goes, but you’re not going to be off the hook,” Riley said. “Trump will continue to impose tariffs, continue to impose costs on Americans, but he just won’t have the unlimited authority that he’ll have if the Supreme Court allows the IEEPA tariffs to remain in place.”
Vermont
Poll: Most young Vermonters say they’re likely to leave state amid affordability concerns – VTDigger
Theo Wells-Spackman is a Report for America corps member who reports for VTDigger.
Nearly two-thirds of Vermonters ages 18 to 34 say they’re likely to leave the state within five years in search of adventure or a cheaper place to live, according to a poll from the University of New Hampshire.
Overall, the poll estimated that 86% of Vermonters find the state at least somewhat unaffordable.
“The issue of affordability has been a very important thing across New England,” said UNH political science professor Andrew Smith, who runs the institution’s survey center. The poll, released Tuesday, includes response data for five New England states, excluding Maine.
In general, the survey found, most residents say Vermont is a good place to live — or even a great one.
Nevertheless, about 40% of Vermonters of all ages want to leave the state, according to the report from Smith’s team. Housing prices and other cost-of-living concerns are the foremost drivers of the trend, researchers found, followed by tax rates. Connecticut and Rhode Island showed similar overall rates of desired departure.
Among young people, though, Vermont’s numbers stand out.
Smith’s research found that 63% percent of Vermonters between 18 and 34 say they’re somewhat or very likely to move out of the state in the next five years. That’s a much higher rate of planned departure than in any other state surveyed. Responses varied from 28% in New Hampshire to 44% in Connecticut.
But according to Smith, New England often sees a beneficial “boomerang effect”: former residents eventually returning to their home states, often as higher earners.
In a Wednesday press conference, Gov. Phil Scott said that although he hadn’t seen the poll, he wasn’t surprised by reports that many Vermonters are considering a move.
“I think there’s a lot of frustration out there,” he said. “We have a lot of work to do to make Vermont the affordable state that these folks need.”
About half of young Vermonters who said they want to move away cited the cost of living as a primary reason, while roughly as many said they were looking for a “new adventure or more excitement.” By contrast, less than a quarter of those older than 64 foresee leaving, according to the poll.
Outmigration of young people could worsen the state’s existing workforce shortage, according to Kevin Chu, who leads the research nonprofit the Vermont Futures Project. Scott’s administration has made workforce development a priority in light of what his office called a “growing demographic crisis.”
Chu added that by design, services such as public education and healthcare are supported disproportionately by working households that tend to pay higher taxes and insurance premiums. When the base of income earners shrinks, the problem can then intensify for those bearing the brunt of rising costs, he added.
“There’s a demographic reality in which the economic burden is being shouldered by a small and shrinking pool of young working-age people,” Chu said.
Tuesday’s poll also indicated that Vermonters who have completed more education say they’re less likely to leave the state. For Chu, that’s likely because such households tend to earn more — and also because they tend to be older.
Julie Lowell, deputy director of the Montpelier research nonprofit Public Assets Institute, offered a grain of salt in relation to Tuesday’s report. While migration is crucial to keep track of, Vermont’s overall population turnover tends to be about 5% or less each year, she said. And although the state does have an unusual number of young people intending to leave, that age group is always the most mobile in any study, she said.
In recent years, more of Vermont’s older population has possessed more wealth to contribute to public services, Lowell added. For example, she said, her organization has found that more Vermonters aging out of the workforce has not appeared to decrease state tax revenues in recent years.
But it’s true that many Vermonters are struggling to make ends meet, she said. The state’s lowest earners have seen low wage growth in relation to other New England states, she said, and basic needs are getting harder to cover.
“We’re seeing prices, in large part driven by housing and healthcare, really outpacing our increases in household incomes,” Lowell said. “Many people are feeling insecure.”
Vermont
Vermont offers money to replace diesel vehicles with electric
Vermont officials are offering $5.9 million in funding to help replace older diesel-powered vehicles and equipment with electric alternatives across the state.
The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation is accepting applications for the funding through the Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust, according to a community announcement. The program aims to reduce emissions by supporting conversions to all-electric equipment used in transportation and industry.
The new funding is open to a wide range of vehicle and equipment types, including class 4–8 trucks, school buses, transit buses, forklifts weighing more than 8,000 pounds, airport ground support equipment, freight switchers and certain marine engines.
Eligible applicants include federal, state, regional and municipal agencies, along with public institutions and private businesses whose vehicles operate in Vermont at least 80% of the time.
Public entities can receive up to 85% of project costs, while private businesses may qualify for up to 75%, according to the announcement.
The opportunity may be particularly relevant for farms, food producers, food hubs and distributors that rely on diesel-powered trucks or heavy equipment.
Applications are accepted on a rolling basis, with submissions due by the last day of each month until December 2026 or until funding runs out.
Applicants can review full details at https://dec.vermont.gov/air-quality/vw-environmental-mitigation-funds/vw-request-applications.
This story was created with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Journalists were involved in every step of the information gathering, review, editing and publishing process. Learn more at cm.usatoday.com/ethical-conduct.
Vermont
Vermont Superior Court mourns Judge Dickson Corbett – Valley News
THETFORD — Vermont Superior Court Judge Dickson Corbett died unexpectedly last week.
Former colleagues said Corbett was found unresponsive Thursday morning and was taken to Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, where he was pronounced deceased. Colleagues and friends said he died of natural causes.
Corbett was in his mid-40s. His death cuts short a career characterized by an intelligent, kind and community-oriented approach to the law, his colleagues said.
“His passing is a devastating loss to our communities,” Kiara Senecal, co-executive director of Orange County Restorative Justice, said in an interview. “He was doing what he was doing for the right reasons, and that truly showed up in his work.”
Efforts to reach Corbett’s family were unsuccessful. His wife, Megan Campbell, is also a lawyer and works in the Vermont Attorney General’s Office. They have two children, ages 16 and 13. After years living in Chelsea, a short walk from the Orange County Courthouse, they moved to Thetford around the time Corbett became a judge.
Corbett’s mild-mannered and soft-spoken demeanor was backed by a deep knowledge and understanding of the law and a commitment to public service, colleagues said.
“He was a dedicated public servant,” Will Porter, the former Orange County state’s attorney who hired Corbett as a deputy in 2013, said in an interview. Corbett “never saw the law as a means to make money,” Porter said.
A native of Pennsylvania, Corbett earned a bachelor’s degree in English at the University of North Carolina, and graduated from Vermont Law School in 2007 with juris doctor and master’s of environmental law degrees.
“I just recall that he was very active,” said Shirley Jefferson, who was then the law school’s associate dean of student affairs and diversity. He was community-oriented, and also took an interest in the school and its well-being, she said.
He clerked in Orange and Windsor county courts while working out his career plans, and when Porter hired him in 2013, judges had assured him that Corbett was a bright light.
He quickly proved himself to be a strong researcher, an excellent writer, a patient listener with victims and witnesses who also could build good relationships with judges, Porter said.
“He made light-strides the first year he was here,” he said.
Corbett was so capable that Porter assumed he’d quickly move on to bigger things, but instead the young deputy immersed himself in the job and stayed for a decade, taking over for Porter after he retired in 2021.
In addition to his work, Corbett served as the town moderator in Chelsea and served on the town Planning Commission before moving to Thetford.
Corbett’s approach to the law put politics to the side. He remained an independent, but both major parties recommended his appointments as state’s attorney and as judge.
He was eager to be a judge, mainly because he felt he could help more people in that role.
“He was a true scholar of the law, so it was natural for him to be a judge,” Orange County State’s Attorney Colin Seaman, whom Corbett hired as a deputy, said in an interview.
“He was just the most wonderful,” Michelle Donnelly, Washington County state’s attorney and a close friend of Corbett and his family, said in a phone interview. “He was so smart and had such a capacity to research and study the law, but he was also incredibly kind and compassionate. … He wanted to understand people’s stories.”
Corbett had all the makings of a jurist who would fit well on either the state Supreme Court or the federal bench, Porter said. But at the same time, he was not one to chase a title or acclaim, but wanted to find ways to be of help, Donnelly said.
“It was about what he could do through the work,” she said.
‘A profound loss’
Official statements about Corbett’s death stress how great a loss this is for the judiciary. He was assigned to hear cases in Windsor County and was overseeing several with a high public profile.
“I am saddened to learn of the passing of Judge Dickson Corbett,” Gov. Phil Scott, who appointed Corbett to serve as Orange County state’s attorney in 2021 and as a superior court judge in 2023, said in a statement. “I always appreciated his dedication to improving the lives of Vermonters through public service. This is an unfortunate loss for Vermont and the Judiciary, and my heart goes out to Dickson’s family, friends, and colleagues during this difficult time.”
“This is a profound loss for the judiciary and for the many people whose lives were touched by his dedicated public service,” Court Administrator Therese Corsones and Chief Judge Thomas Zonay said in a statement last Thursday.
A conversation with Corbett helped turn Seaman into a public servant after 20 years in private law practice. In court in Chelsea one day in early 2023, Corbett talked to him about an opening in the Orange County state’s attorney’s office. He took the job and replaced Corbett soon after, when Corbett became a judge.
“All I can say about him,” Seaman said, “he is the one who always strived to do what was right.”
-
Wisconsin35 seconds agoNew Wisconsin AD Shawn Eichorst: Badgers Need ‘Texas Swagger’ And Less Humility
-
West Virginia6 minutes agoWest Virginia retailers told to allow people to purchase soda with SNAP benefits
-
Wyoming13 minutes agoWyoming women escape black bear attack on their tents in the Big Horn Mountains
-
Crypto16 minutes agoBinance maintains commitment to EU, seeking more licences in Asia
-
Finance21 minutes agoHow Banreservas mobilised diaspora capital
-
Fitness28 minutes agoI’d Fallen Into an Exercise Rut—Until Trail Running Reminded Me How Joyful Movement Could Be
-
Movie Reviews36 minutes agoMovie review: Supergirl is a blast
-
World41 minutes ago
Trump Says He Thinks He Will Remove Syria From US Terrorism Sponsor List
