The US Supreme Court has, in modern parlance, “struck down” President Trump’s global tariffs. The truth is rather interesting and leads to the conclusion that the US Supreme Court got it wrong.
First, with all due respect to law degrees and legal experience, this highly economic decision – one that involves understanding the operational, historic, and current definition of highly sophisticated economic terms of art, including overlapping, intertwined, and interchangeable economic terms – was just rendered by nine justices who, between them, have zero economic training or degrees.
Second, the statute that the President was using to impose tariffs – one that these economically untrained justices blocked him from using – is the 1977 IEEPA statute, or “International Emergency Economic Powers Act,” allowing presidents to act against external threats to the US economy.
The act was first invoked by Jimmy Carter to target Iran with economic sanctions for taking US hostages, but it has also been used – without restriction – by other presidents, including after 9-11. The essence of the act is a provision to allow presidents to act on threats originating outside the US borders.
Ironically, the tariffs that President Trump imposed on many nations, as most economic policy, trade, and security experts acknowledge, were focused on China. As China historically subverts sanctions by using third nations passthroughs, virtually all nations had to be initially included.
The immediate outcome of having many nations included was to trigger bilateral agreements with the US, to include not allowing China to subvert sanctions or restrictions by passthrough. BY all indications, this has worked, while also causing nations to choose between US and Chinese trade.
More importantly, the IEEPA statute would have application – seemingly without limit – in the event that President Trump declared an economic emergency from a foreign source. One could make the argument that, with a $38 trillion national debt, much tied to China, we do approach such a time.
In short, the Supreme Court ruling would fall apart if a crisis were identified, linked to a threat that exists from outside the US border, and the President utilized this threat to warrant responsive tariffs.
Third, the ruling falls apart on more obvious, purely economic grounds, as the dissent points out. Economic powers given to the President by this IEEPA statute are larger than tariffs – and interchangeable with tariffs. The majority says the President did not get an express grant for “tariffs,” but the language in the statute goes beyond tariffs, giving him parallel and interchangeable powers.
The IEEPA law says that the President may, as Congress delegates these powers to him, “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit … important or exportation.” The unspoken fact is that any one of these terms likely swallows the lesser act of imposing tariffs.
In other words, President Trump could reframe his tariffs as subject to an “investigation” into that nation’s unfair trade practices, or assess that the nation’s hostile trade requires “regulation” or “direct and compelling action” or must be “nullified, voided, prevented, or prohibited.” In economic terms, these terms all overlap with “tariffs,” making the ruling look misguided.
On one hand, Supreme Court justices may be expected not to be economic experts, just as they are not genetic experts – and one cannot define a woman – but they would have benefited from drawing on expert economists, making clear the interchangeability and overlap of these economic terms.
Unfortunately, this 6-3 opinion by Justice Roberts, who neatly misunderstood the meaning of “taxes” – in a prior case – to justify the unaffordable Affordable Care Act, is poorly grounded, economically naïve, open-ended on how tariffs could be uncollectible, and misses the main point.
The main point is that the President is responsible for the national security – economic as well as military – of the United States, and has a raft of tools, which he will likely use, to bring those external countries, especially China, to heel for economic abuses and threats to the US.
Once in a while, for reasons tied to missing expertise, US Supreme Court reasoning misfires. The justices’ legal acumen is real, but they also lack economic expertise – in policy, practice, and definitionally. If they had this expertise, they would not have ruled as they did. Expect this ruling to be tested as new trade terms and tools are used against those threatening the US economically.
Robert Charles is a former Assistant Secretary of State under Colin Powell, former Reagan and Bush 41 White House staffer, Maine attorney, ten-year naval intelligence officer (USNR), and 25-year businessman. He wrote “Narcotics and Terrorism” (2003), “Eagles and Evergreens” (North Country Press, 2018), and “Cherish America: Stories of Courage, Character, and Kindness” (Tower Publishing, 2024). He is the National Spokesman for AMAC. Today, he is running to be Maine’s next Governor (please visit BobbyforMaine.com to learn more)!
I’ll make this brief. If you read the dissenting opinions on the matter from Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh, which clearly laid out that President Trump was acting within the constitutional bounds and legal authority of the POTUS under the IEEPA statute, they both laid out exactly why the opinion of the majority of the Court was fatally flawed. The decision of the majority of the Court was simply a means to try and justify the desired pre-ordained outcome that Justice Roberts wanted to deliver. Exactly the same sort of politically influenced ruling that Chief Justice Roberts orchestrated in the ObamaCare ruling.
Fortunately, the President has six other federal statutes, that have already been affirmed by the Supreme Court over the decades, that allow him to essentially accomplish the same thing.
As with any other unpopular Supreme Court decision, Congress has the power to undo this one.
Unfortunately, this do-nothing Congress doesn’t have the will to pass any legislation besides the One Big Beautiful tax cut.
Want to win a Pulitzer? … Find out what dirt the swamp has on Roberts, that makes him bend to their will this time, as with the Obama Care case. Once is a “misunderstanding”… twice is a trend!
Oops! The national debt is 38 TRILLION, a thousand times bigger than 38 BILLION cited in this article.
John Roberts once again unilaterally decided to take EXECUTIVE power from the President. Remember, he declared Obamacare a “tax” even though the Obama solicitor specifically said it was NOT a tax! That provided cover for him to OK Obamacare and get good publicity from the lamestream media! Just like this decision!
Sad decision by the Supreme Court about Tariffs. May Trump and Congress speedily find a way to uphold these Tariffs!
It is the mark of a responsible citizen to have an understanding of the inner workings of the Supreme Court , and a law such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act , this article helps achieve that understanding. And it is good to know that the President can be resourceful in dealing with the economic challenges presented in order to set things right. That is an optimistic outlook to have . There is nothing wrong with good old optimism now and then. This article is appreciated .
For the last thirty years the accumulated trade deficits have been the main driver of the accumulated Federal deficits going straight down into oblivion. We have too many economic morons in the Supreme Court and in Congress. This SCOTUS decision actually supports communist China. The only way to reduce trade deficits is to use tariffs to bring the landed costs of imports up to within range of domestic production costs so we can create taxable value here. Spent four weeks in China where everything is produced using virtual slave labor which is impossible to compete against in a free market economy. President Trump should bring all this up in front of Congress during the state of the nation speech.
Might John Roberts be a puppet on the string, dancing the handler’s way.
At least now we know 2/3 of the Judges on the Supreme Court are Communist .
We have been subjected to the thoughts, decisions and opinions of the entire judicial branch on all matter of claims for the past ten years. It is getting tiresome, anti-American and unconstitutional.
CJotSC Roberts was not the only nominal conservative who voted to overturn the tariffs, on the grounds that they are intended primarily to generate revenue [and thus need to originate in the HoR]. What the President can and should do is get a National Security Finding from the National Security Council demonstrating that our excessive dependence upon “dumped” exports from the PRC and a few other nations is a direct threat to our national security, because it denies our industrial base a reliable source of raw materials [e.g., rare earths, specialty steel additives] and components [e.g., IC chips] necessary to sustain our military industrial complex, core IT/network infrastructure, and public utilities. The tariffs both raise the price of imports to a point where domestic producers can compete profitably AND generates funds necessary for rebuilding our military without increasing income and business taxes.
And yes, the President has other Congressionally-authorized means to justify tariffs, which he can and should use as well to further bolster his case and thwart the globalists efforts to keep up dependent upon imports from the Greater Eurasian Axis [PRC, Russia, Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan] and their southern hemisphere junior partners [e.g., South Africa, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Brazil].
Tariffs. The Supreme Court.
I cannot make sense of either of them….