*Breaking* Supreme Court Majority Seems Skeptical of Trump’s Broad Use of Tariffs

🕒 4 min read

For breaking news items, the actual hard news is above the paywall. But the best part of this column — the analysis, and what is means, are reserves for our paid subscribers. You can upgrade your subscription below. You can even do a free weekly trial…

What Happened at the Court Yesterday

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday on whether the President can impose broad tariffs under a decades-old emergency powers statute without first going to Congress. The administration argued that economic and national security conditions sometimes require swift executive action. The challengers countered that tariffs function as taxes, and the Constitution gives the taxing power to Congress.

Several justices pressed the administration on how it interpreted the law. Chief Justice John Roberts asked who ultimately pays tariffs. When the government acknowledged the cost falls on American importers and consumers, Roberts pointed out that this is the practical definition of a revenue-raising measure. Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether a general emergency statute can be read to override the Constitution’s assignment of taxing and tariff authority to Congress, suggesting that if Congress intended to transfer that power, it would need to say so directly. A ruling is expected next year.

OK, here’s what you can find below the paywall…

• What the Constitution says about tariff authority

• Why some powers cannot be delegated

• Signals from the justices during argument

• My position on tariffs, regardless of administration

• What this means for the balance of power going forward...