SCOTUS Correctly Dumps IEEPA Tariffs

Friday, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling on the dubious legality of Trump's "emergency" tariffs, which the President claimed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) empowered him to levy:

A 6-3 Supreme Court majority on Friday struck down President Trump's sweeping emergency tariffs (Learning Resources v. Trump) in a monumental vindication of the Constitution's separation of powers. You might call it the real tariff Liberation Day.

It's hard to overstate the importance of the Court's decision for the law and the economy. Had Mr. Trump prevailed, future Presidents could have used emergency powers to bypass Congress and impose border taxes with little constraint.

As Chief Justice John Roberts explains in the majority opinion, "Recognizing the taxing power's unique importance, and having just fought a revolution motivated in large part by 'taxation without representation,' the Framers gave Congress 'alone ... access to the pockets of the people.'" [link removed]

I agree with Yaron Brook that the ruling, while imperfect, is very good news in that it upholds rule of law in the short term, and with David French that it cannot, alone, save our Republic:

During Trump's second term, I've likened the judiciary to the rear guard of a retreating army. A valiant delaying action can give the army a chance to reinforce, reorganize and strike back. But if the army can't strike back, then rear guards merely delay defeat.

The judiciary isn't perfect, but it is performing its core constitutional function. It is preserving the foundation of America's constitutional structure. But not even the Supreme Court can save Americans from themselves.

If we keep electing men like Trump, they will keep undermining that foundation, until it finally collapses.

One day that may well happen. But on Friday, the Supreme Court said not this day. On this day the presidency is stuffed back into its box. On this day the separation of powers prevails. And on this day the Constitution holds.

It is now our job to make sure that the Supreme Court did not stand in vain.

Those interested in legal analysis would do well to read Ilya Somin's piece about the ruling in The Atlantic, where one of the counsels in one of the three cases briefly explains the reasoning presented by the concurring and dissenting justices.

Yaron Brook discusses the ruling.

This Brook does as well in his commentary, embedded above, spending time delving into Gorsuch's opinion, which was the most devastating to the tariffs, as well as being about as good as one could expect in today's intellectual context.

-- CAV