The Giant Mess Behind the Supreme Court’s Tariffs Ruling |
Forgot Your Password?
New to The Nation? Subscribe
Print subscriber? Activate your online access
.nation-small__b{fill:#fff;}
The Giant Mess Behind the Supreme Court’s Tariffs Ruling
The 6-3 decision was a rare victory, but it was crafted out of conflicts that leave almost nothing certain—including future tariff rulings.
A television on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange broadcasts news about the Supreme Court striking down Donald Trump’s global tariffs.
On Friday, Donald Trump delivered a characteristically unhinged press conference in the wake of his 6-3 defeat in Learning Resources, Inc v. Trump—better known as the tariffs case. The court ruled that the tariffs Trump issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unconstitutional, and the loss sent Trump into a rage. He castigated the justices who ruled against him, including the Republican ones, calling them “sleazebags” and “slimeballs” and accusing them of being under the influence of foreign powers. He praised the dissenting justices, specifically calling out alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh as a “genius.” He then seemed to treat the dissent as if it were the winning, majority opinion and imposed new 10 percent global tariffs under a different statute (which he raised to 15 percent over the weekend… because, why not), brushed off the statutory language dictating that his new tariffs must expire in 150 days, and said that the law is now “clear” about his authority to issue tariffs without going to Congress first.
Friends, nothing is “clear.” It’s not clear if the government will have to make restitution to the businesses that have been hit with illegal taxes under the Trump administration’s tariff regime. (This is what the plaintiffs in Learning Resources were actually asking for). It’s not clear if the majority of the Supreme Court will approve of these new tariffs. And if they don’t approve, it’s not clear that Trump will follow the court’s orders when it rules against him. The only thing that is clear is that the global trade economy remains beholden to the whims of a madman, while American consumers will continue to pay the price for Trump’s petty international squabbles.
One reason for all this confusion is that the Supreme Court’s conservatives are split on how to apply what they call the “major questions doctrine.” The court didn’t actually use the doctrine in this case, but the conservatives wanted to. The liberals held firm and Trump lost on different grounds, but most of the hundreds of pages of the decision involved the Republicans sniping at each other over this idea.
According to those who believe in it, the major questions doctrine holds that for issues of economic or political “significance,” the Constitution does not intend for the president to act unilaterally. “Major” issues must be decided through legislation, and if Congress wants to give the president unilateral powers, it must do so through clear, precise statutory language.
In theory, the major questions doctrine limits what a president can do without the support of Congress. That has been a long-term goal of conservatives since at least Lyndon Johnson and the Civil Rights Era. But in practice, it puts all the power in the hands of the Supreme Court. Whenever Republicans on the Supreme Court talk about restoring power to Congress, they’re really talking about grabbing power for themselves: What’s an issue of economic or political significance? Only the Supreme Court knows. What constitutes clear and precise statutory language? Only the Supreme Court knows. A reasonable person,........