Supreme Court Debates Unequal Tariff Treatment for Trump and Biden
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court has sparked a significant debate on unequal tariff treatment under past presidencies, specifically those of Donald Trump and Joe Biden. The court’s conservative members, led by Justice Neil Gorsuch, have criticized the inconsistent application of legal precedent regarding executive power.
Supreme Court’s Decision on Trump’s Tariffs
On Friday, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to strike down several tariffs imposed by Trump. Gorsuch wrote a separate 46-page opinion criticizing the court’s approach compared to its treatment of similar cases involving Biden. He emphasized the apparent inconsistency, stating, “It is an interesting turn of events.”
Major Questions Doctrine
The ruling revolved around the major questions doctrine. This legal theory limits presidential actions in areas not explicitly authorized by Congress. The conservative-majority court previously invoked this doctrine against Biden’s plans, such as his student loan forgiveness initiative. However, in this case, Gorsuch and his colleagues argued that Trump’s tariffs should have received legislative approval.
- Majority Opinion: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett sided with the ruling.
- Dissenting Opinions: Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito opposed the decision.
Professor Robin Effron noted the internal division within the court, referring to Roberts’ opinion as a “huge internal fail.” Gorsuch pointed out the inconsistencies among justices regarding the major questions doctrine, highlighting a lack of cohesive legal reasoning.
Liberal Justices’ Reactions
This internal discord extended to the liberal justices. Notably, Justice Elena Kagan rebuffed Gorsuch’s critique, asserting her opposition to the major questions doctrine still stands. “I almost regret to inform him that I am not one,” she playfully remarked in her opinion.
Future Implications
Legal scholars view the ruling as a significant moment. Jonathan Adler from William & Mary Law School noted the court’s decision to limit executive powers even amid concerns from the left. As Gorsuch highlighted and others noted, the legal landscape regarding presidential powers remains complex and inconsistent.
As the court navigates these issues, it remains crucial to observe how these decisions will shape the future relationship between Congress and the executive branch regarding the implementation of major policies.
