Supreme Court Holds Hearing, Trump's Tariffs Hang in the Balance?
American Chinese News reports: President Trump's signature global tariff policy faced a critical test at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. During a lengthy oral argument, several justices expressed serious doubts about whether the president has the authority to impose large-scale tariffs unilaterally without explicit congressional approval.
The core of the debate focused on whether executive power has overstepped, infringing on the constitutional tax power granted to Congress. The ruling will not only determine the fate of Trump's trade policy but may also reshape the boundaries of presidential power in economic and foreign policy areas in the future.
Trump administration lawyers defended this tariff plan, which is seen as a central part of his economic agenda, emphasizing its necessity and the president's broad discretion in foreign affairs. However, the questions from conservative justices showed their clear skepticism toward this position.
Justice Barrett (Amy Coney Barrett), seen as a key swing vote, questioned the government's lawyer: "Are there any other cases where Congress has granted such a broad power with such vague language?" She also pointed out that Trump's tariffs are "extremely broad," implying they seem to exceed the scope of general administrative authority.
Another conservative justice, Gorsuch (Neil M. Gorsuch), raised a constitutional challenge, emphasizing that the power to tax is clearly a core function of Congress and questioning the constitutionality of the president's unilateral actions.
The case's controversy mainly revolves around two constitutional principles. One is the "major questions doctrine," which requires that if Congress intends to grant the president the power to implement policies with significant economic impact, it must clearly state this in the legal text. Chief Justice Roberts (John Roberts) pointed out that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not appear to clearly authorize the president to impose global tariffs within its scope of authority.
The challengers also cited the Supreme Court's previous rejection of Biden's student loan relief plan, arguing that this case established a precedent that the government cannot implement major economic policies without explicit congressional authorization. They pointed out that Trump's tariffs could have an economic impact of up to $3 trillion over the next decade, far exceeding the student loan case, and should therefore be subject to stricter scrutiny.
The other focus of the controversy is the "non-delegation principle," which states that Congress must not transfer core legislative powers to the executive branch. The plaintiffs argue that if the president can levy taxes under the guise of "regulating imports," it would blur the lines between administrative and legislative functions.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, argued that tariffs are part of diplomatic and national security tools, and courts should give the president more flexibility. The government's lawyers also claimed that the "non-delegation principle" applies to administrative agencies, not the president himself.
Although the Supreme Court has previously given the government temporary victories in a series of emergency cases, this is the first time that Trump's conservative agenda has received such a thorough debate at the Supreme Court. The Trump administration warned that if the Supreme Court overturns the tariffs, it would not only weaken the president's trade negotiation leverage but could also force the government to refund billions of dollars in already collected tariffs.
The Supreme Court is expected not to make a decision immediately, but the arguments on Wednesday provided a clear indication of the justices' inclinations. Trump did not attend the hearing on Wednesday, but he posted on Truth Social the night before that the case "relates to the fate of the nation." If he loses, he can still impose tariffs under other laws, but these laws usually come with more restrictions. (Diao Gong Tian Lang)
Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1847998791214087/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.