Supreme Court Rules Trump’s Tariffs Unlawful Under IEEPA

Scholar

Key Ideas & Quote

Why It Matters

Zachary Shemtob
SCOTUSblog

“...there is no doubt that this was an incredibly important opinion, not only because it put curbs on this president's powers and made clear that this court was willing and able to do so, but also it showed a divide among the conservatives on the court and just what powers should be curbed and in what ways. And that's going to play out in some very significant ways moving forward.”

The quote here frames the majority opinion as important because it limits presidential power and reinforces the separation of powers, with the court checking the executive branch. It also highlights the different philosophies about executive power held by conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

Ilya Somin
George Mason University

“...there are some powers [that] are enumerated in Article I which are congressional powers, and some in Article II which are Executive powers. Obviously, there’s also Article III about the Judiciary. The power to impose tariffs, referred to as duties and imposts, is specifically enumerated in Article I. There's absolutely nothing in Article II which suggests that this is also an Executive power.”

This quote is important because the scholar directly addresses enumerated powers in the Constitution. It also supports the argument that Congress, not the President, should control tariffs, thus reinforcing the separation of powers between Congress and the President.

Ilya Somin
George Mason University

“…the major question doctrine is a rule that says that when the executive claims that Congress has delegated to it sweeping power over some major social or economic issue, that at the very least they have to show that Congress spoke clearly on the subject. There’s a clear delegation in the text in the statute. And over the years they have struck down a number of presidential initiatives based on this, most notably President Biden’s massive student loan forgiveness plan. Why does the major questions doctrine apply here? Well, first, this is a very obvious major question. In fact, it’s the biggest major question any of us have ever seen, unless maybe you were alive for the Schechter Poultry case back in 1935. And so here we have the tariffs amounting to the biggest trade war since the Great Depression.”

This quote helps explain the key idea behind the Court’s decision in this case. It describes the major questions doctrine, a rule the Supreme Court uses when the executive branch claims it has the authority to take major actions affecting the economy or society. Under this doctrine, the government must show that Congress clearly delegated (or gave) that power via a statute. If the law does not clearly say that Congress delegated such authority, courts will not allow the executive branch to exercise it. In this case, three Justices in the majority applied the major questions doctrine to evaluate whether Congress had clearly authorized the president to impose sweeping tariffs.

Zachary Shemtob
SCOTUSblog

“Gorsuch is taking a very strong, muscular approach, a judicial flex, in the sense that he believes the major questions doctrine is predicated on the separation of powers, the idea that Congress has certain powers and if it gives those powers or delegates its powers to the executive branch, if it doesn’t say so, then that is deeply problematic to the old structure of the Constitution, which plays into a larger doctrine, ultimately called the non-delegation doctrine, about what it can and cannot delegate.”

“In Justice Barrett's view, it’s a little different. It is common sense, I’d say, linguistic viewpoint or the idea that when we tell someone to do something of great importance, it’s not to be implied that in fact it should be explicit if it’s going to be done at all. So, the idea is, you know, again, if Congress had told the President, had given the President these powers, then it would have ordinarily done so explicitly. And if it didn’t do so, then as a matter of common sense, as a matter of linguistic usage, it didn’t enable the President to have these powers.”

Both Justices Gorsuch and Barrett agreed with the holding in this case but wrote concurring opinions to express their different interpretations of the major questions doctrine. Gorsuch argued that this doctrine is a separation of powers question – Congress must explicitly delegate powers to the other branches or else those branches cannot exert those powers. For Barrett, this doctrine serves as an interpretative tool, focusing on the text of this case specifically and not necessarily establishing a broad constitutional limit as Gorsuch suggests. These distinctions will influence future application of this doctrine in other cases and shows a split in ideology among the conservative bloc of the Supreme Court.

Ilya Somin
George Mason University

“So one reason is they [Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson] just think it's not necessary. And I agree that it's not necessary, though I also think that it's perfectly legitimate for the Court to have multiple bases for its decision, and both bases can be relevant precedent, and there are many cases where the Court says, we have two or three or four reasons why this outcome is justified and all of them can be used simultaneously. The second reason for why the three liberal Justices didn't use the major questions doctrine here, is frankly that they don't like the major questions doctrine, and Kagan in particular has made that clear in previous opinions. And I think she and possibly the others, they worry that the major questions doctrine will inhibit useful presidential policymaking or will inhibit their autonomy too much.”

It is important to point out that while the three liberal Justices on the Court joined the majority, they did not use the major questions doctrine to uphold the judgement. Their concurrences constrain the case’s precedential force as an endorsement of the major questions doctrine and preserve narrower statutory routes to the same outcome.

Zachary Shemtob
SCOTUSblog

“The idea from Kavanaugh [‘s dissent] is that the major questions doctrine does not apply in the foreign policy or foreign affairs realm because that’s where the President’s power is essentially at its apex as a matter of Article II and presidential and executive power. And so therefore it has no application or no pulp here. The majority disregarded that and said, no, it still applies as a matter of constitutional structure essentially, but also kind of divorced the idea of the tariffs as not necessarily being foreign policy in nature, even though, of course, they have foreign policy implications. So ultimately, the idea was one side being Kavanaugh and the dissent saying foreign affairs is the President’s prerogative. Major questions has no purchase.”

The importance of Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent here is that it isolates a key disagreement – can the major questions doctrine constrain executive action in foreign affairs? Kavanaugh says no. This dispute highlights competing views about constitutional structure and whether deference in foreign affairs outweighs the need for clear congressional authorization.