Once again, the court system appears to overlook this little thing called “separation of powers,” as a judge attempts to block President Trump’s tariffs. Attorney Bill Richmond joins the show to break down this latest ruling.

"Do you think that Trump is trying to work on better trade deals for the United States?" Crowder said. "It is interesting that the media is always lining up against the interests of the United States."

According to CNBC:

The U.S. Court of International Trade on Wednesday ruled that the president had overstepped his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose sweeping tariffs on numerous countries.

"[The media] always celebrates the wins of people who want to destroy this country, like China," Crowder said.

The New York-based court ordered a permanent halt to most of Trump’s tariffs and further barred their future modification. A panel of three judges gave the White House 10 days to complete the formal process of stopping the tariffs. The Trump administration swiftly appealed the ruling.

"The courts even taking up this issue is extremely unusual," Richmond said. "We are going to see a busy next 14 days on this front."

The Wall Street bank said the ruling blocks the 10% baseline tariff imposed by Trump on most imports, as well as the additional duties on China, Canada and Mexico – but not sectoral levies, such as those imposed on steel, aluminum and autos.

"This isn’t an argument to say that the president can’t give tariffs or institute tariffs on specific products, but they are saying you can’t just do it broadly — they are saying fentanyl is not a broad enough problem, that illegal border crossings by our foreign enemies is not a big enough problem," Richmond said. "Which really just comes down to, are you guys not paying attention?"

White House spokesperson Kush Desai, in a statement on the ruling, said, “Foreign countries’ nonreciprocal treatment of the United States has fueled America’s historic and persistent trade deficits.”

"They say that Donald Trump applied it too broadly — but these sections seem extremely broad to me as well," Crowder said.

“These deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base – facts that the court did not dispute.”

"Tell me the courts have been politicized without telling me the courts have been politicized," Crowder said.

“It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” Desai added.

"They are cheerleading for people who want to take what you built. And I don’t mean you, the American people, or the country — I mean what you have built personally," Crowder said. "Everything they are advocating for is adversarial to the good of the American people."

The panel in its ruling Wednesday said it did not see a clear connection between the purported emergency that Trump was using to justify the tariffs that responded to drug trafficking, and what tariffs can do in practice.

"Why is the media, why is the Democratic Party, and why are these judges all acting in lockstep? There has to be a commonality — championing China,” Crowder added.