#tariffs + #politics

In a part of the opinion joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Roberts said that Trump’s reliance on IEEPA to impose the tariffs violated the “major questions” doctrine – the idea that if Congress wants to delegate the power to make decisions of vast economic or political significance, it must do so clearly. In 2023, the court relied on the “major questions” doctrine to strike down the Biden administration’s student-loan forgiveness program. In that case and others like it, Roberts observed, it might have been possible to read the federal law at issue to give the executive branch the power it claimed. But “context” – such as the constitutional division of power among the three branches of government – and “common sense” “suggested Congress would not have delegated ‘highly consequential power’ through ambiguous language.”

In cases like this one, Roberts continued, in which the Trump administration contends that Congress has delegated to it “the core congressional power of the purse,” considerations like context and common sense “apply with particular force.” “[I]f Congress were to relinquish that weapon to another branch, a ‘reasonable interpreter’ would expect it to do so ‘clearly.’” And indeed, Roberts said, “[w]hen Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms, and subject to strict limits,” a test that Trump’s tariffs failed here.

Gorsuch, the first Supreme Court justice Trump appointed when he first took office, joined the principal opinion in full but, in a separate concurring opinion, urged Americans to put their faith back into the legislative system.  It was a message that seemed directed toward one person in particular: Trump.  The conservative justice acknowledged that the court’s decision would be “disappointing” for some. He said major decisions affecting Americans are “funneled through the legislative process for a reason.”  “Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises,” Gorsuch wrote. “But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design.”   “Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man,” he continued.  Since returning to the White House, Trump has sought to circumvent the legislative process and consolidate the executive branch’s power across the board.   “In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the Nation’s future,” Gorsuch said. “For some today, the weight of those virtues is apparent. For others, it may not seem so obvious.   “But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today’s result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is,” he added.

A theme throughout the argument was a concern shared among several justices and the plaintiffs, summed up neatly by Gorsuch: “Congress, as a practical matter, can’t get this power back once it’s handed it over to the president,” the Trump appointed justice said. “It’s a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives.”

“We will never get this power back if the government wins this case,” said Neal Katyal, who represented the small businesses challenging Trump’s initiative. “What president wouldn’t veto legislation to rein this power in and pull out the tariff power?”