President Trump loves to take unilateral action, but the Supreme Court has delivered a stark decision telling him there are clear limits to how far he can go without getting Congress on board.
Friday’s decision striking down his major tariffs hinged on a ruling by the justices that Congress never actually gave him the expansive tariff powers he claimed.
The 170-page ruling erased a year of Mr. Trump’s work, punched a new hole in the federal budget, comforted America’s trading partners and sparked some very public grousing from the president himself, who said several of his own picks to the high court had done him dirty.
Mr. Trump had cited a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, in which Congress gave presidents the power to “regulate” imports. The president said that language had to include tariffs.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing the key opinion in the 6-3 ruling, said the president was wrong.
“We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs,” wrote Chief Justice Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee.
He said the Constitution places the role of imposing duties — or tariffs — with Congress. Capitol Hill can lend those powers to a president, but he said they must do so explicitly.
His reasoning was largely joined by the court’s three Democratic appointees and was joined in full by Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil M. Gorsuch, both Trump appointees.
“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Mr. Trump told reporters at the White House.
But Justice Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion Friday, offered what appeared to be his own message to Mr. Trump and others “who think it important for the nation to impose more tariffs”: Take it up with Congress.
“Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design,” he said.
Chief Justice Roberts said there may have been some ambiguity in the law. So he invoked what’s known as the Major Questions Doctrine. That’s a judicial stricture that in areas where the president claims Congress turned over powers, the law must be very clear.
SEE ALSO: Trump un-endorses Rep. Jeff Hurd over opposition to tariffs, backs GOP primary challenger
Justice Gorsuch cautioned the ruling’s critics to think long term. He said they may end up hailing the court the next time it used the Major Questions Doctrine to block a president they don’t agree with.
Indeed, it was the Major Questions Doctrine that caused the justices to sink then-President Joseph R. Biden’s $400 billion student loan forgiveness plan.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, another Trump appointee, led the dissent. He said the court has never subjected a president’s foreign policy powers to the Major Questions Doctrine.
And besides, he said, it was clear enough to him that the law’s language about regulating imports did cover tariffs.
“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.
Mr. Trump’s aggressive agenda has, by and large, bypassed Congress. Save for an early immigration bill and last summer’s One Big Beautiful Bill budget law, the president’s first-year accomplishments stemmed from his own executive actions.
Friday’s ruling was a rare setback from a high court that has, by and large, given Mr. Trump a lot of leeway. It has allowed him to sideline some spending Congress had approved, and granted him expansive powers to carry out deportations and end lenient immigration programs.
Still to come are big decisions on his ability to fire a member of the Federal Reserve and his attempt to block federal recognition of birthright citizenship for children born to parents who are illegal immigrants or temporary legal visitors.
Justice Kavanaugh, in his dissent, said even the court’s latest ruling doesn’t damage Mr. Trump much. The president still can cobble together a package of tariffs using other sections of law beyond the IEEPA, the associate justice said.
Hours later, that was just what Mr. Trump did. He cited the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a global 10% tariff starting on Feb. 24 and lasting for 150 days. On Saturday he raised the tariff to 15%.
Democrats accused him of trying to “defy” the will of the Supreme Court.
Ironically, it was Republicans leveling that same charge at Mr. Biden after he tried to find workarounds to the Supreme Court’s student loan ruling in 2023.
Mr. Trump will see some of the justices on Tuesday when he delivers his State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol.
The president was harsh in his criticism Friday.
“It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think,” he said.
• Stephen Dinan can be reached at sdinan@washingtontimes.com.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.