By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court Justices on Wednesday, expressed considerable skepticism regarding the legality of the aggressive tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. Justices questioned the administration’s justification for enacting the tariffs, with both conservative and liberal justices scrutinizing the process. The core of the legal challenge centers on whether the tariffs, levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, overstepped the President’s authority and infringed on Congress’s power to tax, as lower courts have ruled. If allowed to stand, the tariffs could generate trillions in revenue, highlighting the potential fiscal impact.
Read the original article here
Supreme Court justices appear skeptical that Trump tariffs are legal. It seems like the justices are really starting to scrutinize the legal basis for the tariffs imposed during the Trump administration, and the early signs coming out of the court aren’t looking good for their legality. The justices seem to understand, and perhaps even agree, that tariffs are essentially a form of taxation, and the Constitution is pretty clear: Congress holds the power of the purse.
This skepticism stems from several key points. Firstly, the justices seem wary of granting any president, including the former one, excessive power that could undermine the balance of power, specifically the authority of Congress. The concern is that if the executive branch gains the power to unilaterally impose taxes through tariffs, it could effectively render Congress’s role in fiscal matters meaningless. Justice Gorsuch, in particular, voiced concerns that this could lead to a constant expansion of executive power at the expense of the legislative branch. This echoes a broader worry about the erosion of checks and balances.
Furthermore, the justices seem to recognize the potential for abuse. The argument is that the law under which these tariffs were imposed, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), was intended for use in times of genuine international conflict, not as a general tool to levy taxes or manipulate trade. It appears that the court isn’t buying the argument that the situation warranted the extreme measures. There’s also the element of arbitrariness, as Justice Sotomayor pointed out how the tariffs were applied, being based on the former president’s displeasure with certain countries or to protect allies. This casts doubt on the fairness and constitutionality of the tariffs.
Then there is the issue of the financial implications. The Supreme Court seems to be aware that it’s the American businesses and consumers who ultimately bear the burden of these tariffs, paying billions of dollars monthly to the government. This reality doesn’t seem to align with the intent of the law. The court may also be considering the massive scale of the tariffs and how they were allegedly used to manipulate markets and potentially commit insider trading.
The broader implications of a ruling against the tariffs are also something to consider. The possible scenarios include: the tariffs being struck down, the collected funds needing to be returned, and the disruption this could cause. There are also many other questions that would need to be considered. The details will be important as well.
There’s even a level of cynicism that’s being considered, in that the justices might be playing a long game, looking at the bigger picture and considering the precedent they’d be setting.
Overall, the justices seem to be leaning toward the idea that the tariffs are indeed illegal, but there are also concerns about how far they are willing to go and how much disruption they want to cause. The general sense is that the court is aware of the situation and may be on the verge of making a significant ruling, possibly striking down or limiting the scope of the tariffs.