SCOTUS

[dabrockster]

Alito has a book coming out in October. Rumors flying he may announcement his retirement soon.

And if Alito wants to step down while Republicans control the Senate, he may not want to gamble on this year’s midterm elections.

Republicans are expected to have a much easier time retaining the Senate than the House, but a loss can’t be ruled out. That would make it difficult for Trump to confirm a successor.

Because Senate Republicans may not want to hold a confirmation hearing during the fall of an election year, Alito could announce in the next few weeks that he will step down at the end of the term, Strict Scrutiny co-host Kate Shaw speculated.

Finally, Alito is coming out with a book in October, right as the court will be starting a new term.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...p/88710036007/

[USUC]

BOOM

Gorsuch and ACB are the best Justices and it's not particularly close.

[Northwestcoug]

Isn't Thomas the OG originalist? How did he square Trump's tariffs with the constitution?

[falafel]

Isn't Thomas the OG originalist? How did he square Trump's tariffs with the constitution?

because: Trump

Huge decision from SCOTUS. Trump is going to rage later on today.

[BigPiney]

Isn't Thomas the OG originalist? How did he square Trump's tariffs with the constitution?

He is bought a paid for.

[All-American]

Here is the decision:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1287_4gcj.pdf

[All-American]

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:

Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA—“regulate” and “importation”—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.

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:

For those who think it important for the Nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today’s decision will be disappointing. All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason. Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions. And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day. In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the Nation’s future. For some today, the weight of those virtues is apparent. For others, it may not seem so obvious. But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today’s result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.

[Northwestcoug]

Breakdown:

Some of you may like this paragraph from the conclusion of Justice Gorsuch's concurrence:

lol, for those in government who missed Schoolhouse rock cartoons.

[BlueK]

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:

Agree with Gorsuch here. The current trend of Congress trying to hand all its power to the executive branch instead of doing its job is very troubling to me and is pushing us toward dictatorship.

[chrisrenrut]

Agree with Gorsuch here. The current trend of Congress trying to hand all its power to the executive branch instead of doing its job is very troubling to me and is pushing us toward dictatorship.

To paraphrase Lloyd Christmas:
Hey, I guess the Supreme Court is right. Congress, although mostly impotent and corrupt, can still serve a purpose.

[Pelado]

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:

Thank you for that breakdown and analysis.

[Copelius]

Reading a bit slower than AA, I just came upon my favorite paragraph so far:

Past critics of the major questions doctrine do not object to its application in this case, and they even join much of today’s principal opinion. But, they insist, they can reach the same result by employing only routine tools of statutory interpretation. Post, at 1 (KAGAN, J., joined by SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Meanwhile, one colleague who joins the principal opinion in full suggests the major questions doctrine is nothing more than routine statutory interpretation. Post, at 1 (BARRETT, J., concurring). Still others who have joined major questions decisions in the past dissent from today’s application of the doctrine. Post, at 1 (KAVANAUGH, J., joined by THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., dissenting). Finally, seeking to sidestep the major questions doctrine altogether, one colleague submits that Congress may hand over to the President most of its powers, including the tariff power, without limit. Post, at 1–2 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). It is an interesting turn of events.

All but the CJ Gorsuch

Edited to add other gems:

While straight-up statutory interpretation granted executive officials all the power they sought in all those other cases, my colleagues insist this one is different because IEEPA simply does not “give the President the power he wants.”

Kagen, Sotomayor, and Jackson Gorsuch

Today, JUSTICE BARRETT protests that the foregoing discussion “takes down a straw man.” Post, at 1 (concurring opinion). But it was JUSTICE BARRETT who previously wrote that the major questions doctrine “grows out of . . . commonsense principles of communication.” Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U. S. 477, 514 (2023) (same). And it was JUSTICE BARRETT who used the various illustrations recounted above to suggest that our major questions decisions can be explained by reference to the kind of “common sense . . . that ‘goes without saying.’ ” Id., at 512. If JUSTICE BARRETT now means to put all that to the flame, the major questions doctrine is better for it.

Barrett Gorsuch

My dissenting colleagues begin by taking the major questions doctrine as they find it. They accept that the President’s challenged actions are “of major economic and political significance.” Post, at 33. They accept as well that he must identify “clear” congressional authorization to sustain those actions. Ibid. Still, the dissent maintains, IEEPA clearly grants the President the tariff power he asserts.

Kavenaugh and Alito Gorsuch

First, I do not see how JUSTICE THOMAS’s theory resolves all “‘“separation of powers”’” concerns in this case. Post, at 3 (quoting ante, at 8). Suppose for argument’s sake that Congress can delegate its tariff powers to the President as completely as JUSTICE THOMAS suggests. Even then, the question remains whether Congress has given the President the tariff authority he claims in this case—or whether the President is seeking to exploit questionable statutory language to aggrandize his own power.

Thomas Gorsuch

Ouch!

[BlueK]

Isn't Thomas the OG originalist? How did he square Trump's tariffs with the constitution?

Thomas and Alito continue to prove that they are FAKE originalists. But they've been doing that for a long time. Thomas here saying congress can hand over its taxing power to the president...

1. The Constitution doesn't ever say anything remotely like that
2. The statute Trump is using here never says anything about taxes and tariffs and has never been used like that.
3. Thomas would never make this argument under a democrat president if they tried to unilaterally institute an unpopular tax.

He's either corrupt or a moron.

[frank ryan]

Thomas and Alito continue to prove that they are FAKE originalists. But they've been doing that for a long time. Thomas here saying congress can hand over its taxing power to the president...

1. The Constitution doesn't ever say anything remotely like that
2. The statute Trump is using here never says anything about taxes and tariffs and has never been used like that.
3. Thomas would never make this argument under a democrat president if they tried to unilaterally institute an unpopular tax.

He's either corrupt or a moron.

Thomas is bought and paid for; and his wife being a J6 simp merits concern.

[BlueK]

Thomas is bought and paid for; and his wife being a J6 simp merits concern.

Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett are conservative pragmatists. Gorsuch is principled, thoughtful, consistent. Even when I don't agree with the decision I can respect their reasoning and consider all of them to be honorable.

Thomas and Alito are unprincipled partisan hacks who would decide the same case in completely opposite ways based on which party it helps.