To stay up to date with all the jurisprudence news, subscribe to our new newsletter, executive dysfunction.
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected Donald Trump’s sweeping “emergency” tariffs in a 6-3 vote, ruling that they went far beyond what federal law allowed. with its decision Learning Resources v. TrumpThe court struck down Trump’s signature economic agenda, a sharp rebuke to a president who insists the tariffs are the foundation of his second-term success. Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion for the Supreme Court sent a stark message that Trump should not expect the court to approve all of his expansions of executive power, no matter how much political pressure he exerts on the justices. This rebuttal may come as a surprise given the Republican-appointed supermajority’s previous tolerance for the president’s claims to kingly authority. But as Roberts explains with clear and confident perspective, allowing the president to unilaterally impose taxes—at least without clear congressional authorization—is an existential threat to the nation’s “survival and prosperity.”
Indeed, Trump’s tariffs always rest on shaky legal ground, no matter how confidently the White House insists they are allowed. The president claimed that under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), he is free to impose tariffs of any amount on any country for any period of time. But IEEPA makes no mention of tariffs, tariffs, taxes or anything else that would suggest Congress wants to delegate tariff authority to the executive branch. Instead, it allows the president to “regulate” foreign “imports” in order to “respond to unusual and extraordinary threats” from abroad. Trump’s Justice Department insists he can “regulate” “imports” by imposing tariffs on any country he wants. It also claimed that two different “emergency circumstances” justified the tariffs: chronic trade imbalances with many other countries, and the smuggling of fentanyl into the United States.
Roberts joined Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in rejecting that interpretation. All six judges agreed with the bottom-line conclusion that “these words cannot bear such weight.” As the chief explained, the Constitution gives primary authority over tariffs to Congress, not the president. The Framers “recognized the unique importance of the power to tax” and allowed Congress only “into the pockets of the people.” Tariffs, of course, are “taxes imposed on imported goods and services.”
congress have Delegate some tariff authority to the executive branch, but the laws impose “strict limitations” on the scope and duration of tariffs that the president may decide. In contrast, the authority granted by IEEPA to “regulate” foreign imports does not contain any of these “procedural limitations.” So if it did Allowing tariffs, Roberts noted, would give the president “a dizzying array of modifications to issue at will.” “All it takes to unleash this extraordinary power is a presidential declaration of an emergency that the administration claims is not reviewable.” This is a clue that Congress does not want IEEPA to contain such arbitrary tariff powers.
Another clue: The government was unable to identify “the power of regulation in any statute to include the power to tax.” No law in the entire United States Code uses “regulation” to mean “taxation.” Roberts wrote that the court “thus doubted that Congress concealed its inherent delegation of taxing power within the routine ‘regulatory’ powers in IEEPA (and only in IEEPA). Instead, “Congress’s pattern of use” suggests that when it “granted authority to impose tariffs, it did so explicitly and carefully limited.” “There’s neither here.” Combining those implications with the “breadth, historical and constitutional context,” the chief found that IEEPA could not reasonably be read as giving Trump what he claimed were unlimited latitude on tariffs.
However, the six-justice majority was divided within itself. Roberts joined Gorsuch and Barrett in citing the “substantial issues doctrine” to support their conclusion that IEEPA does not cover tariffs. The controversial rule states that the president must give clear authority when dealing with issues of huge “economic and political significance.” The conservative supermajority has previously invoked the doctrine to roll back President Joe Biden’s student debt relief plan, climate regulations and other progressive goals.
Trump’s Justice Department argued that the doctrine did not apply to “foreign affairs,” seeking to gerrymander districts to suit his trade policies. But Roberts, Gorsuch and Barrett rejected that argument, especially when these “matters” involve “core congressional powers.” Therefore, the three applied this principle to confirm the court’s interpretation of IEEPA. Kagan, along with Sotomayor and Jackson, wrote that there was no need to raise “significant questions” in the case. Instead, she wrote, “the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation are sufficient to support today’s results” without resorting to rules of the “interpretive scale.” (During the duel, Gorsuch and Barrett also argued over the true meaning of the “big questions doctrine,” which justifies liberals’ resistance to legitimizing this slippery, ill-defined rule.)
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s lead dissent — joined by Justices Thomas and Alito — was embarrassing and inconsistent with much of his jurisprudence under Biden. After consistently reading statutes narrowly to limit Biden’s authority, the judge interpreted IEEPA as broadly as possible, declaring that “tariffs are a traditional and common tool for regulating imports.” After preaching the major issues doctrine throughout his judicial career, he declared that the doctrine did not apply to “foreign affairs” (at least during the Trump administration). Thomas’s separate dissent was even worse: The justices have long upheld the “nondelegation doctrine,” which holds that Congress cannot delegate its core powers to the executive branch. On Friday, however, he revised his view, writing that the principle did not apply to previous “royal powers.” Those powers include tariffs, which are not ostensibly “core legislative powers,” Thomas wrote. It’s hard to read this dissent as anything other than Thomas revising his views to fit Trump’s power grab.
Should we be shocked that this court — which for 13 months allowed Trump to abuse its power in shadow cases — so strongly refuted important Trump economic policies? Not really. On the one hand, the case is very simple: As Roberts explains, No A reasonable interpretation of IEEPA would transfer unlimited tariff authority to the president. Furthermore, the business community doesn’t like these tariffs; even the Chamber of Commerce is urging judges to strike them down. Conservative judges sympathized with corporate interests and did them a favor by ending the tariff regime at Trump’s whim. These judges are also economically literate and must understand that tariffs are bad for the economy. Like Trump’s efforts to fire members of the Federal Reserve, the case provides an opportunity for conservatives to show off their independence while delivering a victory for corporate America. From that perspective, it’s a pure win-win.
But we shouldn’t be entirely cynical about Friday’s ruling. It does take courage for judges to stand up to the president in this way, especially when he is trying to bully them into ruling in his favor. Since Trump returned to the White House, we have wondered whether the Supreme Court can gain enough independence to save our constitutional system from his attempt to consolidate all the power of the Oval Office. The Supreme Court frequently evades this responsibility. But there are still lines it won’t let Trump cross. As Roberts writes, the Framers viewed taxation as “the one great power upon which the whole structure of the country depends.” Ultimately, he and his colleagues feel an obligation to protect this thread in the fabric of our country from those who would tear it apart.