Massive Blow to President Trump at Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against President Donald Trump’s global tariffs. The Justices ruled 6-3 that Trump overstepped his Executive authority and needed approval from Congress.

Now the question is, will the President find another way to impose tariffs on nations that trade with the United States?

As reported by The Hill:

The Supreme Court cast aside the bulk of President Trump’s sweeping tariffs Friday, obliterating a canon of his economic strategy in ruling that his use of an emergency statute to remake global trade was unlawful.

The decision invalidates what the Trump administration called the president’s most significant economic and foreign policy initiative of his second term, a result Trump has warned could foist financial ruin upon the United States. 

The justices rejected Trump’s expanded use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in imposing tariffs on nearly every country. The 1970s-era law allows the president to “regulate” imports when necessary to respond to national emergencies that pose an “unusual and extraordinary” threat.  

“We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

“We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

The three Justices who dissented were Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh, with Justice Kavanaugh writing the dissent, warning about what a mess this will now create as they have to figure out how to refund the tariffs already collected.

The Court’s opinion said that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize a President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts argued that while the statute allows the President to “regulate . . . importation,” the language does not include levying tariffs, which the Court characterizes as a tax.

The majority leaned heavily on the idea that the Constitution gives Congress – not the Executive branch – the power to tax. So unless Congress explicitly delegates that authority in clear terms, the President can’t assume it under broad or ambiguous wording.

And it’s worth mentioning this wasn’t a simple ideological split. The majority included historically liberal justices and historically conservative justices alike. Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent argued that tariffs have typically been understood as tools to regulate importation and that previous statutes with similar language had been used by Presidents, including Richard Nixon, to impose across-the-board tariffs.

Kavanaugh’s argument was that the President may have “checked the wrong statutory box.” In other words, the Court isn’t saying a President can never impose tariffs, but rather that this particular law wasn’t the right vehicle to do so.

So now the tariffs imposed under IEEPA are effectively blocked. The lower court ruling that halted them stands. That means the government has to stop collecting those tariffs under that authority. But as I mentioned earlier, billions of dollars in tariffs have already been collected. The Supreme Court did not clearly spell out how refunds should be handled. Now that can of worms is likely going back to the lower courts.

And keep in mind, this doesn’t eliminate tariffs as a policy option altogether. There are other statutes on the books that allow Presidents to impose tariffs – they just involve more procedural steps or congressional involvement. If the Trump Administration wants to pursue similar trade policies, it may try again under a different framework.

Obviously, this ruling has led to frustration among some conservative voters. We had callers to the show today essentially saying, “If you take this tool away from the President, what’s left?” Whether we like it or not, the Constitution divides power intentionally. The Court’s ruling wasn’t about whether tariffs are good policy or bad policy. It was about who gets to decide.

And if we’re going to defend separation of powers when an Administration we disagree with pushes the envelope, we have to accept it when it applies to our side too. The pendulum always swings back.

Regardless, for the last year and a half, there have been some who’ve criticized the Supreme Court as simply being an extension of President Trump’s rule. I think today complicates that narrative. The majority didn’t rule along neat partisan lines. The opinion leaned heavily on textualism, the same judicial philosophy the Court has used to block Executive overreach in other cases, including major rulings against the Biden Administration.

You can disagree with the outcome, but this one wasn’t purely political.

Today’s Sekulow broadcast included more analysis of the Supreme Court’s ruling on President Trump’s tariffs. We were also joined by actor John Michael Finley, star of the new movie I Can Only Imagine 2.

Watch the full broadcast below: