On Friday’s Mark Levin Show, a federal appeals court ruled that President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs was unlawful, which is absolutely ridiculous. This decision could disrupt trade agreements with countries like the EU, Japan, and South Korea which is not what Trump wants. It also puts at risk tariffs aimed at China, Canada, and Mexico, which were intended to curb fentanyl shipments in border traffickings. In addition, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made the decision to prevent Palestinian leaders, such as Mahmoud Abbas, from participating in the forthcoming UN General Assembly. The genius of Rubio asserts that this action is in accordance with U.S. laws that oppose Palestinian statehood and impose penalties on the Palestinian Authority for financially supporting those convicted of terrorism. This decision effectively denies visas to high-ranking officials from both the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization, although personnel at the UN mission will still be permitted to remain. Lastly, a group of Democratic influencers were offered $8,000 a month to join a secretive program run by Chorus, a nonprofit tied to a liberal marketing platform. These influencers are a problem; therefore, we demand to know how much make so we can put an end to their political funding.
Fox News
Rubio Denies Visas To Palestinian Leaders For UN General Assembly, Citing Terror Support
Breitbart
Netanyahu Raps Cindy McCain for Claiming Gaza ‘Starving’ After Privately Admitting Improvement
Jerusalem Post
Turkey completely severes economic ties, closes airspace to Israel
NY Post
Two more Israeli hostages, including Oct. 7 ‘hero,’ found dead in Gaza
Photo by Andrew Harnik
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Rough transcription of Hour 1
Segment 1
Hello, America. Mark Levin here. Our number 877-381-3811. 877-381-3811. After the show, we kick off Labor Day weekend, Saturday, Sunday, Monday. Hope you have wonderful plans or no plans. Just relax. And as I was coming on the air 3 minutes ago. A court ruled that President Trump’s most of his tariffs are illegal. So this will go straight to the Supreme Court. CNBC reporting. A federal appeals court ruled that most of President Trump’s global tariffs are illegal, striking a massive blow to the core of his aggressive trade policy. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the law Trump invoked when he granted his most expensive tariffs does not actually grant him the power to impose those levies. Trump is all but certain to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. He will indeed. The appellate court paused its ruling from taking affected talk. Tobar, 14, In order to give the Trump administration time to go to the Supreme Court. White House did not immediately respond. Now, the Trump administration has argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act empowers the president to effectively impose country specific tariffs at any level if he deems them necessary to address a national emergency. A lower federal trade court in late May rejected that stance and struck Trump’s base tariffs, including his worldwide reciprocal tariffs unveiled in early April. But the Federal Circuit Court quickly paused the ruling while Trump’s appeal played out. We discuss that ruling. It’s just amazing to me the the power these courts have seized. From the president, the power these courts have seized, period. You know, they talk about the. The presidential powers being expanded under Trump. But a great deal greater danger. And it’s a grave danger. Is what the what the courts have done. And it is very problematic. Now, I have this decision in front of me as we speak. And they put it out tonight on a Friday. On a Friday. Let’s see here. Give me a second. The government appeals a decision of the Court of International Trade, setting aside five executive orders that impose tariffs on unlimited duration on nearly all goods from nearly every country in the world. Holding that the tariffs were not authorized by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act because we agree that the acts grant a presidential authority to regulate imports does not authorize the tariffs imposed by the executive orders we affirm. But they say. The case involves the extent of the president’s authority under the act to regulate importation in response to a national emergency declared by the President. For many years, Congress has carefully constructed tariff schedules, which provide for in great detail the tariffs to be imposed on particular goods. Since taking office, the court rates, President Trump has declared several national emergencies. In response to these declared emergencies, the President has departed from the established tariff schedules and imposed varying tariffs of unlimited duration on imports of nearly all goods from nearly every country with which the United States conducts trade. This appeal concerns five executive orders imposing duties on far trading partners. To address these emergencies. And they go on. And I’m going through and I’m reading extra fast. In response to the declared national emergency of the trafficking of opioids in the country and the ostensible failure of Mexico, Canada, China to meaningfully address this threat, President imposed what this opinion refers to as trafficking tariffs. And they talk about those tariffs. They talk about each one of these executive orders is what they do. Let’s see here. Just bear with me. On April 14, 2025, five small businesses and they named the brought suit before the Court of International Trade against the United States and various government officials in their official capacity challenging the president’s imposition of the reciprocal tariffs. And on April 23, 2025, Oregon and 11 other states brought suit before the same court against the United States and various government officials. On May 28, 2025, a three judge panel of the court granted summary judgment to the private plaintiffs and state plaintiffs in the consolidated order, holding that both the reciprocal tariffs and the trafficking tariffs exceeded the President’s authority under the ACT. The government appealed both cases the same day, a move to stay the injunction. Pending appeal. We consolidated the appeals, granted the government’s motion to stay pending their resolution and expedited briefing an oral argument. We also saw a spot. They decided to assign the case to the court and bark. Meaning the whole court. The whole court. The court also concludes that these cases present issues of exceptional importance warranting expedited and bound consideration of the merits in the first instance. And they go through. Now, I’m reading this for the first time with you and they go through a long history. It’s a long opinion, so I’m not going to read the whole thing. I’m scrolling through very quickly here. Just stick with me. And what they’re trying to do, obviously. Here is a quickly summary review of this. Thank God I’m a fast reader, Mr. Producer, but I’m not reading it substantively. I’m just looking quickly at certain portions of it as I speak to you. It looks to be over 100 pages in length. And what they’re basically saying is they’ve looked at the history of the statute. They’ve looked at the practice, the statute. They’ve looked at the practices of Congress and that the president’s actions exceed. The authority. But I’ll tell you what’s interesting to me. Everything for me. When we look at the law, when we look at the courts. It goes back to the Constitution of the United States. Goes back to the Constitution of the United States. The president. Is the head of the executive branch. He’s mentioned in the Constitution, we call it a unitary executive branch, meaning it all reports to him. Same thing when it comes to classifying a declassifying information, that sort of thing. And so when it comes to trade policy. Trade policy. It’s not that a president can do whatever he wants, but if a president believes that it is, even in a general sense, an emergency situation that exists. Is he free to act or does he have to have congressional approval? Now, if you’ve listened to this program, even over the period of the last six months, have you read my book on power? There’s a serious question whether Congress has the power. To legislate in this area. You might say the Commerce Clause. The purpose of the Commerce Clause is to promote commerce between and among the states. But that said. Is Congress had this kind of plenary power to pass legislation and so forth. That’s a good question to. Anyway. The trafficking tariffs make clear the president contemplated eliminating or lowering the tariffs that the countries subject to the tariff took adequate steps concerning the specific identified threat and the actions immediately following issuance of the tariffs confirm the proper focus of the tariffs on the underlying drug crime problem. Talking about Mexico and Canada and China. Both Canada and Mexico’s immediate steps designed to alleviate the illegal migration in illicit drug crisis through cooperative action. And China’s failure to take such steps. Let’s see. Events. Their utility is such a bargaining chip. For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully dissent from the majority’s. So the dissent is saying, Hey, look, the president did set forth emergency circumstances. Involving these states. And they went through the various executive orders. Including drugs coming into the country illegally, killing Americans and the president using tariffs. To try and force other countries to change their conduct, to change their behavior. And so the dissent is saying, at least in the part that I’ve just read. Yes, the president has the authority to do it. And they go on moving past ordinary statutory analysis. Is this boring, Mr. Producer? I don’t think so. Now get moving past ordinary statutory analysis, plaintiffs invoke the major question doctrine. The major question. So the language of the act is undeniably broad on its face. It lists a host of powers, some such as prohibition and prevention, even more restrictive than the terrifying. In other words, even more restrictive than the president’s actions. There’s no suggestion that the act specified authority must be exercised only for specific types of products or only for a narrow set of countries. The facially evident intent is to provide flexibility in the tools available to the president to address the unusual and extraordinary threats specified in a declared national emergency. This is not an ancillary little use backwater provision or a delegation outside the recipient’s wheelhouse. The breadth is anything but surprising in the context, as Justice Kavanaugh recently reiterated. In explaining why they can and has not been applied in the national security or foreign policy context. He said the canon does not reflect ordinary congressional intent in these context, because the usual understanding is that Congress intends to give the president substantial authority and flexibility to protect America and the American people. There is simply no common sense expectation in the present context involving emergency touching foreign affairs that Congress was unlikely to be granting the authority at issue. The facial breadth in an emergency context makes the straightforward application of the statutes where it’s hardly unheralded, quote unquote, it must be mocking the majority. For these reasons, we conclude that the essential premise for using the major questions doctrine to reject the claimed authority for the challenged actions is missing here. Congress very clearly made a broad delegation here, as in other emergency authority delegations. Whether to provide such delegations are certainly open. A policy debate is it carries obvious risks. We do not see the act as anything but an eyes open congressional choice to confer on the president broad authority to choose tools to restrict importation when the Acts section standards are met. We therefore see no reason to pull back from the statutory conclusions we have reached. Plaintiffs argue the act is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the president, that it violates the non delegation doctrine. The Supreme Court has not ruled on this issue, though it has upheld action under the statute. All the courts of appeals to have considered the question have rejected such challenges. The general standard for determining whether Congress had unconstitutionally delegated. Now, this this is actually quite perverse. We have an entire fourth branch of government where, it could be said the Congress has unconstitutionally delegated its legislative authority to unelected bureaucrats. Two unelected bureaucrats. They say the general standard for determining whether Congress had unconstitutionally delegated the legislative powers assigned to it by Article one of the Constitution requires two elements to be supplied. That is an understandable statement of the general policy that the agency must pursue and understandable boundaries. That is sufficient standards to enable both the courts and the public to ascertain whether the agency has followed the law. And the government suggests that and it goes on here. I don’t want to. The non delegate. Nation doctrine policies polices what Congress has delegated to another branch, not to whom it has delegated the authority. Indeed, to distinguish between, in other words, the President versus the executive branch. I haven’t read the rest of this. I’m reading it with you. But it’s obvious what they concluded was it doesn’t violate the non delegation doctrine. It’s a broad power. It’s not really legislative in nature. And I would argue, as I have argued before, and I argue in my book on power, where does Congress get this power? Where does Congress get this power? From nowhere. Now former federal prosecutors, law professors, they may tell you. Well, of course, they have the authority there, the legislative branch. But the legislative branch was never intended to be able to legislate on all matters. If we really want to get to the crux of the matter, it would be a state matter. But when it comes to tariffs, we’ve had presidents as early as George Washington who’s imposed tariffs without statutory, quote unquote, authority. We’ll be right back.
Segment 2
Now this. This is very interesting, ladies and gentlemen. The dissent notices that Congress in the early post founding period authorized the president to make broad discretionary policy determinations. And many of the broadest allegations came in contexts related to foreign affairs. Noting specifically, and this is the Supreme Court noting 1794 authorization to the president while Congress was in session to, quote, impose a shipping embargo whenever, in his opinion, the public safety shall so require. Opinions buying from within the Supreme Court suggests that Congress has especially great leeway to delegate authority to the president in foreign affairs matters based on the view that realities in the area frequently support painting with a brush broader than his customarily wields in domestic areas, quote unquote. That zemo versus rush Supreme Court in 1965. And their point is under Article two of the Constitution. The president leads the way in terms of the conduct of foreign policy, and they point out that tariffs are not merely commercial enterprises or activities. They involve foreign governments, foreign businesses, foreign products and foreign policy. And they say that President Trump is absolutely not exercising authority beyond his Article two powers over past Supreme Court decisions. We’ll be right back.
Segment 3
So the non delegation doctrine that is that Congress does not have the power to delegate legislating to a president and yet look at what they’ve created in the bureaucracy so that seems so ridiculous but nonetheless. The dissent points out that several justices have in recent years noted the distinctive character. Of foreign affairs matters under the non delegation doctrine, and that includes Cabinet. That includes Gorsuch. It includes Thomas. And so this has a very good shot at being overturned in this decision. The deference that’s given to a president in foreign policy. And they say that the court’s formulation requiring the ability of courts to ascertain whether substantive boundaries have been crossed. Really is inappropriate. That’s what the president’s elected to do. Inappropriate. And they go further. They say, we do not see how it would make sense to say that broad delegations subject to particularly deferential review are here in foreign policy, both of which are permitted for constitutional reasons, together lead to a conclusion of unconstitutionality. They also make the point that if Congress doesn’t agree, then Congress can can change the law or Congress class a new law. Which, of course, is. Is true as well. So I think the better constitutional argument in fact, I think the overwhelmingly better constitutional argument, whether you like tariffs or not, is what the president. I also want to thank Clay and Buck. Who have apparently today pointed out that my comments and analysis of the First Amendment and the president’s flag executive order. And the decision related to it by the Supreme Court that relates to it, but not exactly to what the president is doing is fully constitutional. I went through the executive order with you. I went through the history of the First Amendment with you. And I also went through the Supreme Court’s decision in the flag burning case with you. I believe it was 1989. And there is nothing in the executive order that violates that decision. Nothing. Doesn’t mean you can just throw people in prison for burning the American flag. You can’t. But it does mean that under certain circumstances where there are collateral crimes or offences that are committed. And if there are state and federal laws or local laws in which those violations work would occur, then you simply can. You absolutely can. Mike if. If it’s somebody’s private property or if you’ve terror flag off a public building that belongs to the government and you burn it because that’s our flag or other circumstances. Like if burning it is intended as a hate crime or burning it is intended to to stoke violence. That sort of thing. So there are limitations to it. The Supreme Court. Essentially said so.. So what I’ve done on the run here on the fly, 227 pages this decision I’m just counted it is giving you kind of a breakdown of where it comes out, in my view. Uh, that this is not just a commercial or economic issue. This is, in fact, a foreign policy issue. The dissent even points out in the case of Canada, Mexico and China. Tariffs are imposed for two reasons. And one of the most important reasons is the flow of fentanyl and other drugs into our country. They’re killing our people and creating actual casualties. The president is using tariffs in part to address that. How do we know? Because he said so on his executive order under this emergency act. And the idea that this court is second guessing him, the majority in the court is problematic. Because while they’re talking about the non delegation authority that is, Congress can’t delegate lawmaking, even though it does every damn day to the massive bureaucracy, which is my objection. Nonetheless, they can’t delegate lawmaking to a court either. And I think that’s part of the problem here. So the majority looked at it at a very narrow perspective. And yet the act is actually quite broad. And the dissent says that they’re diminishing the scope of the act, really, and they’re empowering the court to second guess the president in this regard. And if it if Congress thinks the president went too far than Congress, this Congress, the next Congress, the Congress after that can pass a statute addressing that. Now, that would be an interesting challenge, too, wouldn’t it? Because what if they’re interfering with the president’s foreign policy authority under Article two? So it wouldn’t be so much a non delegation issue, but it would be an Article two issue with respect to the president’s authority. To make foreign policy. I hope this hasn’t been too complicated. I’ve tried to put it in plain English. I was very. Well, it’s very proud of some of the calls we received the other day where people said, take some of these complicated issues. And I and I present them in an understandable way. That’s that’s what I tried to do. And I did this on the fly, but I think I did it right. So you will. You will have an opportunity as as the week goes on, if you wish to read it, you can. But otherwise, that’s where we are at sea here. All right, Mr. Producer, I am going to your audio list, if you would, trying to find it. Of course, we’re having a printer problem. I always have some damn problem. So we’re going to go to. Hold on, folks. I want to go to Mike Johnson. You know, we always play what the Democrats say because I want to respond to them because I don’t think they’re adequately responded to, especially when it’s on CNN or MSNBC or it’s in The New York Times or The Washington Post or such publications. But Speaker Johnson was on CNN today about redistricting. And Governor Abbott, who I happen to think is a great governor. He signed the Texas Redistricting Act today. And so, of course, CNN and MSNBC and the rest of them take up take up the cause of the Democrats. NEWSOM The DNC. They’re troubled by this course. They weren’t troubled by anything the Democrats have done, which is appalling. They never mentioned Massachusetts, which doesn’t have a single Republican. In the House of Representatives, even though 35% of the people, they are Republican. Even though what’s taken place in California, even before their attempt change and what’s taking place in in Illinois a couple of years back, didn’t seem to upset them in the least. Not in the least. They never even brought it up. But I want you to take a listen to what the speaker says again to CNN. This guy, Berman, is is truly a Mashhad, an idiot mouthpiece for the Democrats. Cut three. Go. Listen, 43% of the electorate in California is Republican. 14% of their delegation to Congress is Republican. They’ve already disenfranchised people. They’ve already gerrymandered. And it’s interesting to me that Democrats who have been playing policy. Redistricting for decades. They’re now trying to lecture the red states and Republicans who are simply following state and federal law. That’s what they did in Texas. There’s a big difference between what’s happening in those states. You stated the Republicans in California. Why stop them in a place? This guy Berman You could hear he barely wanted to let Speaker Johnson finish. He was ready. He was ready to jump. Go ahead. I’ve seen every year it’s 5054 presidential elections. Two out of eight representatives are Democrat, So 25% in Utah, 37%, about the same state for all the states that were eliminated in 2000. Where does it stop my I’m. I think it’s ridiculous. I want to know where it stops. Well, I don’t know. I mean, I have a little. Let me help John Berman. I don’t know what the speaker says, but let me address this first. What do you mean? Where does it stop? Do you understand the Constitution? You’re obviously a nimrod. You obviously don’t. The states get to make these determinations. What do you mean? Where does it stop? You know, it’s interesting, in California, they said, where does it stop? And they created this commission, which was to be filled with objective experts who would sit down with maps and population numbers and race numbers and all the rest and come up with these these pristine districts that were based on apolitical determinations. And what happened? Newsom and Pelosi stuffed that commission with partisan hack Democrats, including some who. Who were members of the DNC. And even now, what that commission has done isn’t enough because they dared to create nine Republican districts out of 50, what was it, 52 and a 52 seats, 17% Republican, even though you heard the speaker, over 40% voted Republican. And so now he’s even bypassing that. And what is the state Supreme Court say? They’re stacked with radical Democrats. It’s okay. So they’re violating their own their own statute. They’re bypassing the people of California who are required to participate in it. Under their processes there. To do what? To eliminate five Republican seats. So you would literally have 48 Democrat seats. And four Republican seats. In a state where Republicans voted over 40% Republican excuse me, where voters voted over 40% Republican. What do you think of that? Where does it end? Go ahead. You know where these things and I don’t I don’t control the governors. If I could get them all on a conference call, I’d say resolve it, gentlemen and ladies. But they don’t. And so we’ll see where it goes. Yeah. What a stupid question. Now listen to Barack Obama and Eric Holder, Frick and Frack, Sacco and Vanzetti. To hardcore left wing radical partisans. They put out an ad calling Texas and Florida redistricting racist. Racist. Why is it racist? You might elect more Republicans. Why is that racist? It’s sick cut for. I go, Hey, everybody. That’s right. All right, let’s let’s let’s go back to the beginning. Hey. Hey, everybody. Hey, it’s Barack. Hey. Hey. Cool, man. Man. It’s Barack here. Hey, man, it’s cool. All right, Go ahead. Hey, everybody. That’s right. And I am here with my good friend, Attorney General Eric Holder. Because we’re facing an existential threat to our democracy, and we need your help. Stop right there. See everything? Everything’s an existential threat to democracy. If they don’t win, if they don’t fix the results, so they. They have to win. It’s always an existential threat when they lose. It’s an existential threat if they don’t have more Supreme Court justices. It’s an existential threat. Clarence Thomas. Sam Alito. Neil Gorsuch. Kavanaugh. They’re existential threats. Donald Trump is an existential threat. Remember when Newt Gingrich was an existential threat? When there’s a Republican majority, it’s an existential threat. When you secure borders and you’re deporting illegal aliens, that’s an existential threat. When you support the cops, it’s an existential threat. Go ahead. Now, in states across the country, like Texas and Florida, these extreme conservative politicians are announcing and acting on plans to slice and dice House districts with the goal of preserving their own power while diluting the voting power of communities. Isn’t this sick? Isn’t it sick? You folks know the facts. A lot of people don’t pay attention to this stuff. You folks know the facts. And yet. Look how they lie. We’ll be right back.
Segment 4
All right. I’m going to post something on this because I can already see some of the cable guys and radio guys are getting this wrong. It’s too bad. It’s too bad that we we embrace the arguments typically of the the people who are wrong about these things. So let me sum up, because you’re going to hear a lot of crap about this tonight and throughout the course of Labor Day weekend. The appellate court ruled against most of the president’s tariffs and it has it wrong. Whether you like tariffs or not, the act does, in fact, grant the president broad powers to declare an emergency even more. The Constitution, under Article two grants the president broad powers to make foreign policy. The president’s lawyers are obviously aware of this, which is why the executive orders at issue rely in part on the issues of foreign policy, including Mexico, Canada, China, which are not doing enough for Brent, the flow of deadly drugs into our country. As for Congress not having the power to delegate this kind of decision making to the president. Several Supreme Court decisions and justices have noted in the past that when dealing with foreign policy as opposed to domestic policy, the president has broad authority and the non delegation doctrine. Really is looked at totally differently. Totally differently. And this goes back to the early days of the administration. Okay. Two great hours left. Our foot is on the gas pedal. We don’t slow down and we don’t tap we don’t tap the brakes. We’ll be right back.