It was the court’s first major ruling on President Trump’s expansive view of executive powers, and showed that three out of six conservatives completely disagreed. To Trump, they are “fools and pet dogs.”
President Trump reacts to SCOTUS tariff decision to lower tariffs
After expressing disappointment with the SCOTUS tariff decision, President Donald Trump announced that he had signed an order imposing 10% tariffs worldwide.
WASHINGTON – A president accustomed to demanding loyalty and winning at the Supreme Court did not hold back after the court on Feb. 20 struck down sweeping tariffs that had been the centerpiece of his economic policy.
President Donald Trump said at a news conference that the three conservative justices who dissented showed strength, wisdom and love for their country.
And the people who ruled against him, including two of the three judges he appointed?
“The Fool and his Dog”
President Trump called them “RINOs” (Republicans in name only) “idiots and pet dogs.”
“I am ashamed of some members of the court and absolutely ashamed of their lack of courage to do what is right for the country,” he said.
It was the first major ruling by a 6-3 conservative majority court on Trump’s expansive view of presidential powers, and several of the six members indicated they completely disagreed.
Until Friday, the court was primarily considering whether President Trump’s controversial policies could move forward during the lawsuit.
Several challenges are now making their way through lower courts, and the ultimate fate of his policy is being decided.
Further decisions are expected
Even though there are various legal issues at stake, there are more important decisions to be made, and Trump could lose again.
It is unlikely that a majority of the court will approve Trump’s removal of Lisa Cook from the Fed board, even though the conservative justices are expected to give Trump more control over other independent agencies during oral arguments in January.
In April, the court is scheduled to consider President Trump’s interpretation of the Constitution’s citizenship guarantees for infants born in the United States.
The issue in the tariff case was whether President Trump could avoid the more complex and limited normal customs procedures, because the law that gives the president the power to “regulate” imports in emergencies includes the power to impose tariffs.
Conservatives in trouble
This issue has put conservative judges in a corner. Courts have said in recent years that the executive branch cannot take actions that significantly affect the economy or raise issues of major “political importance” without explicit authorization from Congress.
The so-called “major question doctrine” was used to block President Joe Biden from canceling $400 billion in student loan debt and extending eviction moratoriums related to the coronavirus pandemic. The conservative justices also ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency cannot regulate power plant emissions that contribute to climate change.
“We have long expressed a reluctance to read too deeply into ambiguous statutory language that specifically delegates Congressional authority,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, citing previous tariff rulings.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, the first of three conservatives appointed by President Trump to the Supreme Court, wrote another opinion highlighting the importance of getting major policies like taxes and tariffs through Congress.
“Through that process, a nation can harness the collective wisdom of its people’s elected representatives, not just the wisdom of one faction or individual,” Gorsuch wrote. “And because laws need to have broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to stick around, and when the rules change daily, they allow you to plan your life in a way that ordinary people can’t.”
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who was also appointed by President Trump, emphasized that the “most natural interpretation” of the emergency law that Trump sought to use is that it does not include the power to impose tariffs.
A liberal judge carved his own path.
The court’s three liberal justices, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, each said in a written statement that they could invalidate the tariffs based solely on the bill’s language. They disagreed with Roberts’ use of the “serious question” legal theory.
In a concurring opinion, Kagan said she opposed using the theory to override climate change regulations or Biden’s debt relief.
“In my view, the Court used clear authorization rules in these cases to override the large delegations authorized by Congress,” Kagan wrote.
In the case of tariffs, she said no special test is needed to read the law because the tariffs “do not meet normal tariffs.”
Why did some conservatives oppose it?
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, reached the opposite conclusion in a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But they are clearly legal based on the text, history and precedent.”
Kavanaugh said the “leading question” doctrine is not a factor because the authorization is clear and the court has never applied the rule to policies with a foreign policy element.
President Trump publicly thanked Kavanaugh for his “genius and incredible ability.”
The president said he was “very proud of the appointment.”
But Trump said Gorsuch and Barrett’s votes were “a disgrace to our family.”
