Striking Down Trump’s Tariffs Isn’t a Judicial Coup. It’s a Vindication of the Rule of Law.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The debate over President Donald Trump’s tariffs often focuses on whether they are prudent. Defenders insist that Trump’s tariffs will help make America great again and boost national security. Critics counter that they’ll wreck the economy. But the strongest argument against the tariffs is actually that they are unlawful. Neither the Constitution nor any statute authorizes Trump to impose what he ordered.
Now, months after sticklers for the rule of law began making that argument, it has finally been vindicated: Yesterday, the United States Court of International Trade, the federal court with jurisdiction over civil actions related to tariffs, struck down almost all of Trump’s tariffs in a 49-page ruling. The decision includes a detailed discussion of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the 1977 law delegating increased power over trade to the president during national emergencies, which the White House had cited to support its moves. It concludes that the law does not authorize any of Trump’s tariff orders.
Administration officials quickly challenged the ruling’s legitimacy. “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement. “The judicial coup is out of control,” Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller posted on social media. But their objections are dubious, not because the judiciary never overreaches, but because at least three features of this dispute make the argument for judicial overreach here especially weak.
First, the Constitution is clear: Article I delegates the tariff power to Congress , and Article II fails to vest that power in the presidency. So the Trump administration begins from a weak position. And the court’s ruling did not arrogate the tariff power to the judiciary, which might have warranted describing it as “a judicial coup.” It merely affirmed Congress’s power over tariffs. Americans need not fear a judicial dictatorship here. Congress can do whatever it likes. Indeed, it could pass a law reinstating all of Trump’s tariffs today without violating the court’s ruling. But Congress is extremely unlikely to do so, in part because Trump’s tariff policy clearly lacks public support; for example, a recent poll found that 63 percent of Americans disapprove of it.
Second, the plaintiffs in this particular lawsuit include the states of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont––all democratically accountable entities in a federal system where states are meant to act as a check on unlawful exercises of federal power. All of those states asked the court to rule in this manner to vindicate their rights under the law. As Oregon’s attorney general put it, “We brought this case because the Constitution doesn’t give any president unchecked authority to upend the economy.” States controlled by both Republicans and Democrats routinely file lawsuits asking the judiciary to strike down purportedly unlawful actions by the president. There is bipartisan consensus that such judicial review is legitimate, not couplike, and such rulings have constrained presidents from both parties.
Third, when Congress created the Court of International Trade and later defined its jurisdiction, its precise intent was to create an arm of the judiciary that would exercise authority over trade disputes. Congress made a deliberate choice to alter an earlier law vesting that power in the Treasury Department, under the executive branch, and deliberately vested it in a court instead. To quote from the 1980 law that defined its powers , “The Court of International Trade shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced against the United States, its agencies, or its officers, that arises out of any law of the United States providing for tariffs.” Policing whether or not a tariff complies with the law and the Constitution is central, not peripheral, to the court’s ambit.
If the Trump administration kept its criticism of the judiciary to edge cases, where there is real doubt about how the Constitution separates powers, it could plausibly claim to be engaged in the sort of dispute that is inevitable when branches of the federal government are checking one another as intended. That it seeks to delegitimize even this ruling suggests contempt for any check on the power of the presidency, not principled opposition to judicial overreach.
The Constitution explicitly vests the tariff power in Congress, and wisely so: Empowering one person to impose taxes and pick economic winners and losers tends toward corruption and dictatorship. Going forward, Congress should set tariff policy itself, and impeach any president who tries to usurp its authority.
Tags
Who is online
120 visitors
More Trump hating "activist" judges? I think not. One of the three was appointed by Trump and another was appointed by Reagan. The jig is up.
The stock market shot up on the news Trump cant impose broad tariffs, now the jackass gets to take credit for a rising stock market ! win win
I care that the stock market is rising. I don't care who takes the credit for it
Obviously. But we all knew he was going to say that.
Shot up? The S&P 500 is up 0.09% currently. Let's don't get carried away.
The interesting point of the discussion is the rationale for the decision. The court has basically said "you can't just declare any random thing a "national emergency" and then do whatever the you want".
“The court has basically said "you can't just declare any random thing a "national emergency" and then do whatever the you want". “
Agreed, and within their jurisdiction.
This may be the case, if fast tracked to the supremes, that may define this courts decision making process when it comes to trumps flaunting of established precedent and of stretching constitutional boundaries.
The potential ramifications are needless to say…consequential.
New precedents can nullify older ones, and by their very nature, boundaries can be stretched without legally breaking them.
Yeah. Exactly. But I think it extends far beyond Trump.
The nature of precedent being what it is, if they confirm Trump's ability to declare a national emergency and then use that to circumvent congress on actions unrelated to the emergency, they confirm that for future presidents, as well.
I think the Trump administration's plan here is similar to how he might negotiate a real estate deal.... push things farther than they know they can get away with, and let the courts push back.
I do think there is a question to be asked about controls or limits on what constitutes an "emergency". I'm still suspicious of how an open southern border constitutes and emergency in Missouri, or Delaware or Wyoming.
What tariffs were NOT struck down?
Good news doesn't last long, since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has stayed the court order.
Neither should a lone unelected federal judge impose nationwide injunctions and rulings on actions of the executive branch of US government. Once again, the Supreme Court should have the final interpretation of the constitutionality of these tariffs.
If we only had a Chief justice this would have been settled long ago.
I didn't look too closely at the decision but from the summary I read and the reaction of the Trump administration, it seems like the decision focused only a few of the statutory bases of Trump's claim and that Trump has other basis for his action.
I'm fully on board with Congress taking power away from the executive and administrative agencies without a clear delegation of power from Congress so that's good. Country can't afford another Biden presidency with agencies running amok.
Yeah, I think that's a good assessment.
If we look to less biased sources (I use CNBC) we get:
(Emphasis mine.)
IMO, two interesting questions get raised here.
First, what can a POTUS legitimately declare as a national emergency? What would have stopped Biden's handlers from declaring "bullying of trans people" a national emergency? Or if Brian Kemp wins the presidency, what stops him from declaring a national emergency due to "a University of Georgia losing football season"? Silly example, obviously, but where is the line?
Second, what can a POTUS legitimately enact based on said emergency (which is the subject of the ruling here). What stops some religious puritan from declaring a national emergency over a measles outbreak and then using that to outlaw strip clubs or gambling or any other vice she wants eradicated?
Has the act itself ever been challenged constitutionally? That might be an interesting discussion.
Ahhh, reminiscing about Covid.......................and especially the shutdowns
Well.... yes and no.
Declaring a national health emergency for a highly contagious and deadly disease seems appropriate.
Limiting close quarters contact to protect the rest of us from the idiots who think a 98% survival rate is high is also justifiable.
Still refusing to collect student loan payments 2 years later.... WTF are we doing?
The conservative and libertarian legal movement has both celebrated positive things the Trump administration has done and also directly opposed him - successfully - when he has exceeded his constitutional authority. The same was not true of the left during the Biden Admin.