Originally posted by All-American
View Post
Breakdown:
The vote was 6-3, with Justices Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson in the majority and Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito dissenting.
As stated in the majority opinion, the power to impose tariffs is a branch of the taxing power, and that power belongs to Congress. The authority on which the President relies to impose the tariffs comes from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which authorizes the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.” §1702(a)(1)(B). The upshot of the opinion is this:
Of all the things the President is authorized to do under IEEPA, Justice Roberts noted, there is no mention of tariffs or duties. "That omission is notable in light of the significant but specific powers Congress did go to the trouble of naming. It stands to reason that had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly—as it consistently has in other tariff statutes. . . . When Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints. It did neither here."
There's a minor point that will be of interest to wonks like me, regarding the "major questions" doctrine. That doctrine expresses the idea that when Congress intends to do something really impactful, it will do so clearly. Justice Roberts (joined by Justices Gorsuch and Barrett) used the major questions doctrine to support the decision, and Justice Gorsuch wrote a concurrence encouraging that application (with Justice Barrett writing still another opinion just to critique Justice Gorsuch's opinion). But Justices Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, held that it was not necessary to invoke that doctrine and reached the same conclusion through ordinary statutory interpretation. Justice Gorsuch critiques that reticence, saying that they "all but apply the major questions doctrine" anyway, so we might as well say so. It's an interesting little twist that previews other battles to come over the extent of congressional delegation of authority; apparently, the three concurring Justices are wary of putting a thumb on the scale against Congress. And since that portion of the opinion did not garner six votes, it remains unendorsed.
(Not that anyone who wasn't involved in drafting the opinions will know this for sure, but my bet is that the haggling over the "major questions" doctrine is the reason the opinion took as long to issue as it did.)
Justice Jackson also wrote a concurring opinion stating that she thought it appropriate to rely on legislative history to see Congress's intent. That viewpoint has been falling out of style under pressure from textualists, so it's interesting to see it pop up again. Notably, no one else joined that opinion.
The dissenters disagreed with the substance of the majority opinion, finding that the text of the statute does allow the President to impose tariffs as part of the regulation of importation. Of additional interest, Justice Kavanaugh's dissent predicted that the President would likely try to find another legislative vehicle to impose tariffs, with the result that "the Court's decision is not likely to greatly restrict Presidential tariff authority going forward." If that prediction holds true, we can expect President Trump to try again.
Some of you may like this paragraph from the conclusion of Justice Gorsuch's concurrence:
The vote was 6-3, with Justices Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson in the majority and Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito dissenting.
As stated in the majority opinion, the power to impose tariffs is a branch of the taxing power, and that power belongs to Congress. The authority on which the President relies to impose the tariffs comes from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which authorizes the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.” §1702(a)(1)(B). The upshot of the opinion is this:
Of all the things the President is authorized to do under IEEPA, Justice Roberts noted, there is no mention of tariffs or duties. "That omission is notable in light of the significant but specific powers Congress did go to the trouble of naming. It stands to reason that had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly—as it consistently has in other tariff statutes. . . . When Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints. It did neither here."
There's a minor point that will be of interest to wonks like me, regarding the "major questions" doctrine. That doctrine expresses the idea that when Congress intends to do something really impactful, it will do so clearly. Justice Roberts (joined by Justices Gorsuch and Barrett) used the major questions doctrine to support the decision, and Justice Gorsuch wrote a concurrence encouraging that application (with Justice Barrett writing still another opinion just to critique Justice Gorsuch's opinion). But Justices Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, held that it was not necessary to invoke that doctrine and reached the same conclusion through ordinary statutory interpretation. Justice Gorsuch critiques that reticence, saying that they "all but apply the major questions doctrine" anyway, so we might as well say so. It's an interesting little twist that previews other battles to come over the extent of congressional delegation of authority; apparently, the three concurring Justices are wary of putting a thumb on the scale against Congress. And since that portion of the opinion did not garner six votes, it remains unendorsed.
(Not that anyone who wasn't involved in drafting the opinions will know this for sure, but my bet is that the haggling over the "major questions" doctrine is the reason the opinion took as long to issue as it did.)
Justice Jackson also wrote a concurring opinion stating that she thought it appropriate to rely on legislative history to see Congress's intent. That viewpoint has been falling out of style under pressure from textualists, so it's interesting to see it pop up again. Notably, no one else joined that opinion.
The dissenters disagreed with the substance of the majority opinion, finding that the text of the statute does allow the President to impose tariffs as part of the regulation of importation. Of additional interest, Justice Kavanaugh's dissent predicted that the President would likely try to find another legislative vehicle to impose tariffs, with the result that "the Court's decision is not likely to greatly restrict Presidential tariff authority going forward." If that prediction holds true, we can expect President Trump to try again.
Some of you may like this paragraph from the conclusion of Justice Gorsuch's concurrence:
Leave a comment: