Discussion
The challenges to Trump’s #tariffs reached #SCOTUS after judges in 3 different lower courts ruled against the admin but allowed the import taxes to remain in effect while litigation continued.
In a 7-to-4 ruling in late August, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the emergency statute did not authorize “tariffs of the magnitude” #Trump announced.
“Whenever #Congress intends to delegate to the president the authority to impose tariffs, it does so explicitly,” the majority said…
Arguments are finally getting underway after a late start.
First up is Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Trump’s top Supreme Court lawyer, arguing for the #Trump admin.
The court has allotted 80 minutes for arguments, but they will almost certainly extend well into early afternoon.
#ClarenceThomas first asks about the ‘major questions’ doctrine
The conservative majority blocked President Joe #Biden’s $500 billion student loan forgiveness plan & other of his administration’s initiatives by ruling that #Congress must speak clearly on questions of “vast economic & political significance.”
It’s not clear whether the justices will apply the same principle in the #tariffs case, but lower courts did.
Sauer says it doesn’t apply to foreign affairs issues.
Justice #Kagan says #Congress, not the president, had the power to #tax & regulate foreign commerce.
Justice #Sotomayor is pressing the government on the fact that #tariffs are a form of #taxation, which rests in the hands of lawmakers to enact. “It’s a congressional power, not a presidential power, to tax,” she said.
Sauer argues that what is at issue in this case is not the “power to tax,” an authority given to Congress, but the ability to regulate foreign powers.
“The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental,” Sauer says of the tariffs. I’m not sure Trump would agree: #Trump has often emphasized the vast amounts of revenue being raised by his #tariffs & their ability to offset #tax cuts.
Justice #Sotomayor is also acknowledging an argument we’ve heard frequently in months of lower court arguments — that the economic emergency law that Trump is using to impose tariffs does not explicitly contain the word tariff.
Justice #Jackson raises a key issue: That the emergency #law in question, #IEEPA, was actually passed by #Congress to constrain the president’s authority & reform an earlier law, the Trading With the Enemy Act, or #TWEA, that Nixon had used to issue global #tariffs.
#SCOTUS #law #PartisanCourt #ActivistCourt #AbuseOfPower #Trump #economy
per NYT, Peter Harrell, a visiting scholar at Georgetown’s Institute for International Economic Law, said that although presidents have steadily broadened the use of #IEEPA over the years, “it was definitely intended to constrain authority.” In return, the #Trump admin is arguing that that change was only intended to add process constraints, not to add substantive constraints, on the president’s actions.
#SCOTUS #law #tariffs #PartisanCourt #ActivistCourt #AbuseOfPower #economy
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
