The Supreme Court issued their opinion on Trump’s use of tariffs. In a 6-3 decision, The Court ruled against Trump’s use of the IEEPA as unconstitutional.
Thomas and Kavanaugh filed dissenting opinions. Alito and Thomas joined with Kavanaugh.
Jackson was off the rails, again, in her concurrence.
We interpret the constitution’s plain text and this nation’s tradition of regulations. The meaning of the constitution is as it was understood when it was adopted. The meaning of amendments is as it was understood when the amendment was ratified. The meaning of the 14th Amendment is as it was understood when it was ratified. Its meaning when it was ratified was that the constitution, as amended, applies to the states, meaning what it was understood to mean when adopted and ratified.
In other words, the 14th Amendment is understood to be incorporating the federal constitution, not as redefining the understanding of the constitution or previous amendments.
Jackson feels that it is important to look at and evaluate the legislative history of a regulation, rather than the plain text and how that text was understood.
The Question
Given all of that, how do you feel about this decision?
I have not read the opinion. I will say that it is likely this was the correct decision, when evaluating Trump’s actions under the plain text and this nation’s historical traditions of regulations.
first off- what is IEEPA????
I remember when people spoke and wrote the english language.
one of my issues is everyone assumes everyone is up on the lingo….
IF the conservative judges ruled against it and they haven’t been paid off, then they are right to do so.
in light of the ginormous corruption everywhere it remains to be seen.
imo the best thing to do is live life without engaging in politics of any kind. all politics does is ruin all it touches. this Country is so full of division and hate right now….
Part of being a conservative, I believe, is being willing to accept decisions that I don’t happen to like if they are in line with law. You don’t just “make crap up.” [1]
.
I believe that’s the case here.
.
[1] Well, at one point somebody did, because that’s how we got the rule / law / whatever in the first place. (Similarly all words are, in the end, made-up words.) But once established as a framework we agree to live by, and with an agreed-upon processes to change it, then, yeah, you have to stop making stuff up all on your own. That leads me into thoughts about whether, at age 18 or something around there, people should be given a choice to either formally accept the nation’s laws and traditions, or leave. Sort of like Confirmation is for Catholics, although with a little more free will involved.
I am not too keen on the decision. But, I am not automatically opposed to it either.
President Trump was, in my opinion, raising tariffs based solely on his authority as President. And, raising them to whatever level he felt was necessary at the moment. I am not legally savvy enough to know if the IEEPA gives the President that authority or not. However, the SCOTUS heard arguments both for and against, and six of the Justices agreed with the against. Granted, three of them were going to agree the President does not have that authority regardless of the arguments presented.
.
Do I want President Trump to have the authority to raise tariffs without any oversight? Yes, I do. Do I want President AOC or Gavin to have the same authority? Not a F-ing chance. No way, nope, never.
.
This is a reminder to all that the President is not a king. The authority of the office is subject to challenge and test. Sometimes, the President will have their authority checked.
.
Final note, I have not read any of the opinions of this case at all. I am relying on headlines and news articles. I have no doubt the leftists on the court provided a majority opinion that is based on their feelz and wants, as much as on actual law. I also have no doubt that if it were President Harris that raised tariffs on their own authority, the majority opinion would have been different.
Using an originalist prism, this ruling is accurate in my opinion.
The constitution vests no inherent taxing authority in the executive branch, providing that responsibility to Congress to prevent monarchical application. Moreover, IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) is an emergency. How many perpetual states of emergency are we currently living in? When will those ‘emergencies’ end?
Hamilton warned corruption may occur through mixing revenue and foreign policy in the Federalist papers.
What was telling is that the dissent clearly identified other legal means by which tariffs could be enacted and Bessent spoke about it yesterday in Dallas.
A potential hidden gem: if the executive does not hold the power to levy tax, how does that mean a challenge to the GCA as a tax carries more merit? IANAL, but a savvy barrister for GOA may make that argument.
I haven’t read much. The fact that the opinion was written by Roberts makes me suspicious; he has a tradition of deciding the answer he wants followed by constructing some tortured reasoning to support that answer. Obamacare as a tax is a bad example that comes to mind.
I did see a few lines from a dissent, that points out the executive power under debate clearly permits the president to ban imports from country X entirely. Given that, the dissenting justice observes, why would you hold that a lesser impediment — a tax on imports from X — is not allowed?
On the notion of “historic tradition of regulations” — I dislike that term almost as much as I do “scrutiny”. Both are legal jargon describing some process by which the plain meaning of the law can be subverted by sufficiently creative excuses. Instead, I approve of Jefferson’s statement:
“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should therefore be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense; and their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure”