SCOTUS v. Trump: Tariffs

Congress should have handled this. 

But, since they are led by chickenshits, a 6-3 Supreme Court opinion blocked Trump's patently illegal (and financially stupid) usage of tariffs.

People wondered why they were taking so long. The 170 pages of opinions help explain why. 

Roberts handled the majority and did so in twenty pages. Kavanaugh (for Thomas and Alito) wrote a dissent three times as long. 

Gorsuch wrote a "combative" (to cite one comment), quotable concurrence twice as long.

Gorsuch, essentially thinks virtually everyone else is wrong, hypocritical, or both. He, virtually alone, is pure.

Right you are, Law Dork. Gorsuch is a prick and remains one even if he sometimes is on the right side.  He took over for Scalia and has improved his writing. 

Still a prick. People are loving some of his concurrence. Kagan and Barrett show that some of it is hot air. Dude goes too far. Keep that in mind. 

Both Barrett and Kagan, in different ways, basically told him to stop mansplaining. Kagan, for the liberals, didn't use the "so-called major questions doctrine." 

Kavanaugh and Thomas (adding some other originalist invention that many originalists aren't aware of) found a way to avoid it. Some are surprised at Kavanaugh's vote, but other than Alito and Thomas, he has been the most Trump-friendly. He did go the extra mile here. Give that man a beer. 

Jackson, arguing that it is what many legislators use more than bare citation of text, appealed to legislative history. She will be fighting the young Trump appointees for years to come. You go, girl! 

When Congress tells us why it has included certain language in a statute, the limited role of the courts in our democratic system of government—as interpreters, not lawmakers—demands that we give effect to the will of the people.

Barrett's opinion (a few pages, since she's not a blowhard) specifically answered Gorsuch, tossing (as required) a couple of citations of her former boss (Scalia). She noted:

Textualists—like all those who use language to communicate—do not interpret words in a vacuum. Instead, we use context, including background legal conventions, common sense, and constitutional structure, to ascertain a text's most natural meaning. (cleaned up)

Which is fine. Just to be clear, those terms are rather flexible. Again, that is fine, since any interpretative method will be, especially in hard cases. 

It is just that when Scalia or Gorsuch claims their method is special while the other side is lawless or something, they are full of themselves. 

I wrote something about originalism and Richard Hasen's book (not new) about Scalia here. More here ("Joe from the Bronx"). 

He has a chapter about "word games," arguing that textualism sometimes is just that. Like Jackson, Hasen also cites others who have found that Congress expects its laws to be handled differently. 

The majority opinion argues that there is no "foreign policy exception" to the major questions doctrine, especially when it involves taxation, a basic congressional power. Reminds me of the Steel Seizure Cases and the Supreme Court's citation of domestic powers. 

Roberts left open the possibility that Trump has the power to apply tariffs using some other legislative authority. Such authority has various limitations. It won't let him do his unhinged, power-hungry routine against various nations. Well, as badly. 

The law is crystal clear; conservatives are wary about tariffs, and it is a way for the Supreme Court to show they are not a potted plant. 

TPM is correct that the Supreme Court took too long. This has been going on for around a year. The tariffs are lawless. They caused lots of problems. 

Let's not exaggerate. The Supreme Court should have restrained Trump much more. And, the result is messy, since it does not handle the relief for taking money illegally. More litigation will follow. 

But you take the wins when they come. Trump reportedly was cursing when he found out about the opinion. He later said at a press conference:

Trump praises Alito, Kavanaugh and Thomas for dissenting on the tariffs ruling before, calling the other justices "a frankly disgrace to our nation" who are "very unpatriotic and disloyal to our constitution" and are "just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats."

Justin Baragona on BlueSky also flagged that he still welcomes three of the justices to his speech to Congress, while others are "barely" invited. Barrett and Gorsuch are embarrassments to their families. 

Yeah. I'm still with the House Minority Leader.

"Fuck Donald Trump and his vile, racist, and malignant behavior

“This guy is an unhinged bottom feeder,” Jeffries added. “Every Republican sycophant who continues to stand by their cult leader should be run out of office.”

Let's end where we began. Congress could and should have handled this. They still can. 

A Democratic Congress would have had a better shot.

ETA: The law here should not cloud the policy. 

The very reason this lawsuit could be brought is that it brings financial harm to the challengers.

My reference to Congress touches upon this. Democrats are already highlighting the economic harm and demanding refunds for ill-gotten funds. 

Trump promoted tariffs as a fundamental aspect of his economic policy in the 2024 elections, to much scorn from reasonable people. Reason, however, did not win out. Many still realize the policy was stupid and (contra to his lies) mostly paid by Americans. 

Other Stuff

They also changed the rules to help flag financial conflicts. The public information office posted an explanation (sometimes just notify the press). 

It would be even better if Roberts and Alito (well, he might be gone soon) sold their stocks. Also, be nice if all of them, not just Kagan and Jackson, explained why they recuse from cases. 

There was also a housekeeping order. More orders on Monday. Two opinion days next week. They are back hearing oral arguments. So busy, busy. 

They will also have (in March) an event in honor of Sandra Day O’Connor.