Tariffs Down, Trump Up and Shaken

In a remarkable display of bipartisanship and strict interpretation of the Constitution in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, SCOTUS struck down nearly all of Donald Trump’s tariffs on foreign countries. The Supreme Court found that the power to collect taxes, duties, etc., lies explicitly in the legislative branch, whose approval is required for Trump’s tariffs. The administration argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) granted it the authority to establish tariffs: this authority was found to be insufficient, since the IEEPA neglects any mention of “tariffs, duties, or taxes”. The consequences of the ruling are grand, with possible tens of billions in refunds to those concerned and, naturally, mass speculation in odds and stocks. In the face of immense pressure and growing presidential ambitions, the decision defies party lines.

Friday, Feb 20th, marks another relatively rare instance of a Republican SCOTUS panel rejecting and checking the increasingly bold executive. Those in opposition to the administration highlight Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution, part of which reads “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” – in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the case is open-and-shut. The decision, however, has been described as a “splintered” one: a vote of 6 to 3. The three dissenters are Justices Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito: all Republican appointees. Their votes, grounded in their extensive legal expertise, party allegiance, or any other factors, mark potential for future easing in judicial checks and balances of the executive.

The bipartisan decision was predictably hailed or denounced along party lines and by groups of interest. Members of the Democratic Party, such as Representatives Newhouse and Golden, as well as Senator Schumer, the Democratic Minority Leader of the Senate, are cheering on the decision. Meanwhile, President Trump appeared to be fuming when addressing the decision in his recent news conference. The President repeatedly used the word “disgrace” in reference to the decision and criticized his own appointees who voted against him. Immediately in retaliation for the decision, Trump signed an executive order imposing a global 10% tariff that he believes he has the authority to do under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. In this course of action, Trump appears to pursue a reaffirmation of his power rather than an item of his foreign or economic agenda.

Undoubtedly, Trump’s retaliatory attempts to circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling will be put to the test in courts once more: despite precedent, the strictly Constitutional approach, as the three dissenting SCOTUS Justices show, is far from granted in the future. What did happen as of today, however, is the removal of the majority of newly-implemented, “Liberation Day” tariffs; an important distinction being that some tariffs, such as the sector-specific and “National Security” tariffs, remain in place. Trump’s ambitions also seem to be undeterred, even in the face of this broad, sensational setback and his passionate reaction. Despite the rebellious votes of three Republican justices – Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett – residents concerned by executive overreach should not find cause for relaxation and complacency in this decision.