Korean media: The atmosphere at the U.S. Supreme Court is unusual, with the view that "Trump's tariff measures infringe on Congress' authority"

On the 5th, the U.S. Supreme Court questioned the authority of President Donald Trump to impose comprehensive tariffs. During a three-hour oral argument, the justices focused on questioning whether the Trump administration could impose broad tariffs on countries around the world under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), showing resonance with the idea that the president had overstepped Congress' "taxation authority." Although the U.S. Supreme Court has a structure of 6 to 3 in favor of conservatives, both conservative and progressive justices expressed doubts about Trump's tariff policies that day.

Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out: "The power to tax American citizens is a core authority granted to Congress by the Constitution, and the president's foreign policy authority cannot override this." Justice Sonia Sotomayor also countered: "You say tariffs are not taxes, but in fact, they are a fiscal means of taxing American citizens."

Especially, the conservative judges appointed by Trump also raised critical questions, making the courtroom atmosphere even colder. Judge Amy Coney Barrett said: "No president in history has ever claimed the authority to impose tariffs based on the wording 'import control.' It is difficult to believe that Congress has made such a comprehensive authorization." Judge Neil Gorsuch warned: "If the president gains unlimited power under the IEEPA, Congress would have almost no way to reclaim this power. This is a matter of unilateral accumulation of power." Judge Brett Kavanaugh also stated that Trump's interpretation of the scope of the IEEPA was too broad, saying "a legal balance is needed," indicating a cautious stance.

The focus of the dispute in this case is the 25% tariffs imposed by the U.S. on China, Canada, and Mexico, citing the "Fentanyl National Emergency," as well as "reciprocal tariffs" on most trading nations. Trump called it the "Liberation Day for the revival of American manufacturing," but the first and second courts ruled that the IEEPA does not grant the authority to impose tariffs, determining it to be illegal.

Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court pointed out: "Imposing unrestricted tariffs on global goods will have significant economic and political impacts, and the president cannot have such authority without clear congressional authorization." Progressive Justice Elena Kagan also criticized: "Although the law provides various measures, it does not include the tariffs you want." U.S. media reported: "Not only the progressive justices, but also the conservative justices expressed doubt about Trump's tariff policy." Analysts believe that the Supreme Court is likely not to completely deny the tariffs, but to make a conclusion in the form of limiting their scope.

The White House said that if it loses in the Supreme Court, it will maintain some tariffs based on other legal grounds such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. However, this does not have the immediate and widespread power like the IEEPA, so the speed and scope of the Trump administration's policy of using tariffs as a comprehensive lever are expected to be greatly limited. This is why Trump referred to the case before the Supreme Court as "a matter of national survival."

The U.S. Treasury revealed that the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration solely based on the IEEPA have exceeded $89 billion (about 12.8 trillion won). If the Supreme Court rules them unconstitutional or illegal, these taxes must be refunded to companies. This not only affects the U.S. budget but could also impact countries, including South Korea, that have reached or are advancing trade negotiations with the Trump administration.

With the court deciding to handle this case through "expedited review," the conclusion is expected to be reached faster than usual. Generally, the Supreme Court issues final rulings on major cases in June-July, but due to the significant impact of this case on the overall economy, some believe that the conclusion may be reached by early next year at the latest.

Source: Chosun Ilbo

Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1848005677147212/

Disclaimer: This article represents the views of the author.