SCOTUS hearings on Trump’s tariffs
Sounds like SCOTUS is getting ready to rule against Trump’s sweeping use of tariffs:
Supreme Court justices on Wednesday expressed skepticism about the legality of aggressive tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump against most of the world’s nations.
Conservative and liberal justices sharply questioned Solicitor General D. John Sauer on the Trump administration’s method for enacting the tariffs, which critics say infringes on the power of Congress to tax.
Lower federal courts ruled that Trump lacked the legal authority he cited under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the so-called reciprocal tariffs on imports from many U.S. trading partners, and fentanyl tariffs on products from Canada, China and Mexico.
Sauer, who is defending the tariff policy as grounded in the power to regulate foreign commerce, said “these are regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs.”
That’s the gist of it.
It was an interesting oral argument on tariffs (at least for us dysfunctional law nerds). My view has not changed. I think that the odds favor the challengers. Sauer did a brilliant job, but he faced an obviously skeptical and discomforted Court…
…Justice Barrett and Gorsuch had some doubts about the other side but repeatedly returned to the sweeping authority claimed by the President. Even Chief Justice Roberts states repeatedly and categorically that the tariffs are a tax…
…That does not mean that the majority cannot shift or splinter during conference and drafting. However, Sauer knew he had a tough case to make and found one today before the Court.
…Keep in mind, as noted by the challengers, the Administration has a great deal of alternative options to maintain tariffs. However, given this argument, Congress may want to address the tariffs if it wants to avoid what Justice Barrett called “a mess” of reimbursements.
There’s quite a bit of disagreement with Turley there in the responses to his tweets, however. They range from people saying the non-liberal justices weren’t so hostile to Sauer’s arguments for the tariffs’ legality, to others saying that stopping Trump from instituting tariffs would end up stabilizing the economy and helping Republicans in the midterms.
“Stabilizing the economy”? Where is it bad right now? None – and I mean zero – of the “expert predictions” about what tariffs would do have come true.
The world has been ripping off the US for decades, and most politicians don’t care because they are being paid off by those who benefit. The past half century has been a “bust out” of the US – selling it off or outright giving it away in pieces to the benefit of those few who profit, at the expense of the US worker. If you expect congress to do anything about trade imbalance and ripping off the US – this is the same congress who didn’t do anything about the border or immigration even though a vast majority of Americans want it closed. It took Trump to close it while Congress, even under republicans does *nothing*.
The Supremes voting against this is making the Constitution a “suicide pact”, much to the delight of communist China and the congress people that are in their pocket, which includes nearly all of the California delegation.
Now you can buy the goods by paying the tariff. If the court likesTrump can implement quotas instead. Buy the Chinese machine tool and pay the tariff vs no tariffs but low quotas means you get delivery “someday”.
Reindustrialization of this country will take at least ten years of government policies encouraging it. It’s a commonsense idea. If we could rely on China, and other low-cost sources to not cut us off, then it wouldn’t be so risky and dumb to rely on them for so many necessities. But we can’t trust China, India, Vietnam, etc.
To build up our industrial base means taking some pain in the short term. But there would be less pain if the Democrats weren’t so intent on stopping anything Trump tries to do.
We need to get back to logging, mining, drilling, and building things in this country. To make it worthwhile for companies to do that there has to be a curtailment of cheap imports.
Tariffs or quotas will do that.
But as Chases Eagles points out, quotas mean delivery dates will be uncertain. However, if the SCOTUS rules against Trump, quotas can be used. It makes things more difficult but not impossible.
Even if a tariff is a tax it is not only a tax. It can be a retaliatory measure against a nation engaged in some practice we deem harmful to our interests. The effectiveness of it may be questionable, but who’s to decide? That’s the real question. I’m sure that argument was made.
For what it’s worth this was discussed at length over the weekend on the WSJ Editorial Board’s show on Fox. They seem to expect a unanimous court opinion that the President’s powers are not unlimited here. Where and how they draw the line? No one had a clue. It is a tough spot for the court to be in.
We are 38 trillion dollars in debt. What’s the definition of insanity?
Turley is a Squish. Roberts is untrustworthy. As we circle down the drain how many citizens will understand the issues. Much less care?
This is a decision for the political branches. Congress and Congress alone has the power and the tools to decide if the President has exceeded the authority granted to him by them and to determine the appropriate remedy. The anti-tariff shitheads don’t have the votes and the court is too stupid and arrogant to understand this.
Well, the Judicial Branch has been working at destroying the Presidency, so they might as well complete the job that they have so nobly begun!
Let’s see;
it may be unconstitutional for the president to impose tariffs ( I have no idea) but it was just fine for president Biden to open up the borders in direct violation of US law and for govt. agencies like the EPA (un-elected, unaccountable) to impose laws, totally bypassing Congress.
How convenient.
Let me guess; if Biden ( or any democrat president) decided to impose tariffs, there would not have been any court challenges.
Oh, by the way, didn’t Biden ignore a SCOTUS ruling re: forgiving student loans??
Speaking of open borders; why didn’t Republicans in Congress bring this issue to the federal courts or to the SCOTUS?? The dumbpublicans, as is normal for them, complained loudly but did not do excrement.
But they did hold several congressional hearings to allow Mayorkas, at each hearing, to lie.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/11/06/counting-to-five-for-the-government-in-the-tariffs-case/
Josh Blackman shares his views from the oral argument hearing yesterday. Worth a read.
I, for one, do not want a republic where the president gets away with using a power that no one believed he had by citing an old statute or legal doctrine that no one ever before thought could convey the claimed power.
See:
Obama – DACA and DAPA – prosecutorial discretion
Obama – lax immigration enforcement – prosecutorial discretion
Obama – “waving” parts of statutes that proved inconvenient – no justification given
Biden – Vaccination mandate – various old statutes
Biden – Student loan forgiveness – various old statutes
Biden – Eviction moratorium (after the statute expired) – basically because he could
And then:
Trump: – “waiving” the TicToc law passed by Congress – no clear justification given
Trump: tariffs – IEEA and other statutes
If you’re against it when the other guy does it, you can’t support it when your guy does it too.
And, as the SG admitted in the arguments – if Trump wins this case, the next Democrat president, likely in 2029, will have the power to declare a “climate emergency” and implement a whole bunch of taxes and regulations that could never pass Congress.
Be careful what you wish for. A principled conservative should be rooting for Trump to lose this one, or at least have his wings clipped to a significant degree.
Indeed…
…but as intimated by JohnTyler @9:56 am…
Somehow. [Scratches head] Gosh, HOW did THAT ever happen????
(And, shucks, as long as we’re wondrin’, might as well ask about “Fast and Furious”, “Russiagate”, “MichaelFlynngate”, ImpeachTrumpgate 1, ImpeachTrumpgate 2, StolenElectiongate (at ALL levels), RoyallyScrewDJTgate1,2,3…n, RoyallyScrewDJTSupportersgate1,2,3…n, and—what’s it called?—ArcticFrostgate”?? And there’s no doubt more than a few more that I missed….)
CC™ the true voice of principled conservates, not just concerned conservatives, has his knickers in another twist.
The Great Orange Whale must be stopped or the Democrats may do something a little unpleasent.
Another way of looking at it all, perhaps:
“Stop Missing The Bigger Picture Re: Tariffs”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/stop-missing-bigger-picture-re-tariffs
Self defense!!!..???
(BUT NOT AT ANY COST!!!…???)
I suppose one could always re-open the Nuke Japan debate…(as if it was ever closed….).
Oh yeah, I missed HunterBidengate and Autopengate…
Oh, and JoeBiden’sMostDefinitelyComposMentisNoMalarkeygate.
Hmmm. Must be a few others.
What about BidenCrimeFamilygate? Hmm. Oh, well why not? Let’s throw that one in, too.
Must still be a few others.
(I dunno. THAT TRUMP had better behave himself. OR ELSE!!!
“OR ELSE” WHAT???
…”OR ELSE” the Democrats might just have to do something REALLY DRASTIC!!)
sdferr, thanks for the link. I hope Blackman’s analysis is correct.
Why do states have standing to dispute import tariffs?
A little context about the IEEPA act. I asked Grok, “when was the International Emergency Economic Powers Act passed and what was the trade battle at the time?”
Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 (TWEA) is still on the books, by the way.
While President Trump’s use of the IEEPA is under different circumstances, the emergency changes over time and a law needs to be flexible enough to handle those changes. I think it’s been demonstrated over recent years that the United States is faced with problems with it’s security without a robust manufacturing/mining base. We have been at an economic disadvantage for quite some time and government policy giving China most favored nation status and admittance to the WTO was a mistake– which we have only recognized the danger it created in recent years.
President Trump recognized this danger before it became critical, but it was only a matter of time before China would use that leverage to stifle/harm US interests in foreign policy.
It would be best if Congress would do it’s job but it’s been captured by the personal greed of members who are fine with using it’s powers to siphon off profits from it’s policies through vehicles like insider trading and receiving largess from lobbyists.
So what exactly has changed from three years ago?
“He’s Still the One”—
https://www.compactmag.com/article/he-s-still-the-one/