SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BROAD TARIFF MEASURES
WASHINGTON — In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court has invalidated President Donald Trump's far-reaching tariffs, determining that he does not possess the authority to implement such levies under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The majority decision, comprising three liberal and three conservative justices, found the president lacks the power to impose tariffs using IEEPA.
Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson formed the majority coalition. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the decision.
The six-justice majority concluded that IEEPA does not grant the president the power to impose tariffs, noting that the law primarily empowers the president to "regulate… importation" in response to unusual and extraordinary threats to national security, foreign policy, or the U.S. economy. When President Trump announced his wide-ranging tariffs affecting nearly every country last April, he invoked IEEPA to address perceived large and persistent trade deficits. The president also utilized IEEPA to levy taxes on China, Canada, and Mexico over claims of their failure to curb the influx of illicit fentanyl and other drugs into the U.S.
No previous president had employed IEEPA to impose tariffs, as the law does not explicitly use terms such as duty, levy, or tax. The six justices concurred that IEEPA does not confer the power to impose levies on the president. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority: "Our task today is to decide only whether the power to 'regulate … importation,' as granted to the president in IEEPA, encompasses the power to impose tariffs. It does not."
The Supreme Court's decision, found in Learning Resources v. Trump, acknowledges that tariffs constitute a distinct entity.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, has ruled that President Biden does not have the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), as Congress did not grant such power clearly and with appropriate limitations. The majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, argued that the president must provide clear congressional authorization before imposing tariffs, a stance supported by justices Gorsuch and Barrett but not uniformly adopted.
The decision, which revolves around the interpretation of the phrase "regulate … importation," states that the president cannot impose duties of unlimited amount and duration on any product from any country under IEEPA. The court's conservative wing, including Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett, applied the major questions doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for broad executive assertions of power in matters of significant political or economic significance.
The chief justice stressed that Congress would not be expected to delegate its tariff powers through vague language or without constraints. He noted that when Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so explicitly and subject to strict limits. Roberts also emphasized the profound economic and political consequences of the tariffs implemented under IEEPA.
This ruling marks a significant limitation on the executive's power to impose tariffs without explicit congressional authorization. The decision comes after the Supreme Court's conservative wing has consistently relied on the major questions doctrine in cases challenging major policies from the executive branch, such as the rejection of President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan and the blocking of an eviction moratorium during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In a decisive ruling, the Supreme Court majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, concluded that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President the authority to impose tariffs on foreign goods. The court's judgment hinges on the silence of IEEPA regarding such power, a point agreed upon by all six justices in the majority. Notably, no previous president is reported to have interpreted the law as authorizing duties.
In contrast, the liberal justices - Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson - concurred that IEEPA does not confer tariff-imposing power on the President. However, they reached this conclusion using standard statutory interpretation methods. Justice Kagan's concurring opinion underscored that while IEEPA grants extensive authority over foreign property transactions, including imports, it does not include the unilateral imposition of tariffs. Without legislative sanction, any imposed tariffs would be invalidated.
Justice Kavanaugh authored the principal dissenting opinion, arguing that the President's IEEPA authority to "regulate... importation" encompasses the imposition of tariffs. This position is supported by a historical tradition of presidents using duties as a regulatory tool for commerce. Justices Thomas and Alito joined Kavanaugh in this dissent.
The court's ruling potentially challenges the legality of tariffs imposed under President Trump's administration, which were predicated on the belief that they would reduce the national deficit by $4 trillion and generate international agreements worth $15 trillion. The stakes are significant, as the President views these measures as crucial to determining whether the nation is economically rich or poor.
In a divided decision, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito joined a dissenting opinion led by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, upholding the president's authority to impose tariffs on foreign imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The majority opinion, penned by Justice Kavanaugh, argued that tariffs, like quotas and embargoes, are traditional tools used for regulating importation.
Justice Kavanaugh emphasized that IEEPA grants the president the power to impose quotas or embargoes on foreign imports during national emergencies, and these measures, though more severe than tariffs, are not distinguished in the law. He contended that this empowers the president to regulate imports using tools traditionally employed, including quotas, embargoes, and tariffs.
Addressing the major questions doctrine, Justice Kavanaugh asserted that it is satisfied in this case because the statutory text, historical context, and precedent constitute "clear congressional authorization" for the president to impose levies under IEEPA. He also pointed out that throughout history, presidents have employed tariffs as a means to regulate importation.
Justice Kavanaugh further argued that the Supreme Court has never applied the major questions doctrine to matters of foreign affairs, including foreign trade. In his view, courts should interpret statutes as written and not use the major questions doctrine as a barrier against the president in foreign affairs cases.
However, Justice Kavanaugh acknowledged that the ruling may not significantly constrain a president's ability to set tariffs moving forward, as there are numerous other statutes available to justify such measures.
Source: Read Original Article