The Dissent in the Tariffs Case Had it Right

[excalibur]

President Trump used the authority granted to a President by Congress.

The dissent was spot on.

From Justice Thomas:

Congress authorized the President to “regulate . . . importation.” 50 U. S. C.
§1702(a)(1)(B). Throughout American history, the author-
ity to “regulate importation” has been understood to include
the authority to impose duties on imports. Post, at 9–13,
22–29 (KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting). The meaning of that
phrase was beyond doubt by the time that Congress enacted
this statute, shortly after President Nixon’s highly publi-
cized duties on imports were upheld based on identical lan-
guage. Post, at 14–22. The statute that the President relied
on therefore authorized him to impose the duties on imports at issue in these cases.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH makes clear
that the Court errs in concluding otherwise.
I write separately to explain why the statute at issue here
is consistent with the separation of powers as an original
matter. The Constitution’s separation of powers forbids
Congress from delegating core legislative power to the Pres-
ident. This principle, known as the nondelegation doctrine,
is rooted in the Constitution’s Legislative Vesting Clause
and Due Process Clause. Art. I, §1; Amdt. 5. Both Clauses
forbid Congress from delegating core legislative power,
which is the power to make substantive rules setting the
conditions for deprivations of life, liberty, or property. Nei-
ther Clause prohibits Congress from delegating other kinds
of power. Because the Constitution assigns Congress many
powers that do not implicate the nondelegation doctrine,
Congress may delegate the exercise of many powers to the
President. Congress has done so repeatedly since the
founding, with this Court’s blessing.

The power to impose duties on imports can be delegated.
At the founding, that power was regarded as one of many powers over foreign commerce that could be delegated to the President. Power over foreign commerce was not within
the core legislative power, and engaging in foreign com-
merce was regarded as a privilege rather than a right.
Early Congresses often delegated to the President power to
regulate foreign commerce, including through duties on im-
ports. As I suggested over a decade ago, the nondelegation
doctrine does not apply to “a delegation of power to make
rules governing private conduct in the area of foreign
trade,” including rules imposing duties on imports. Depart-
ment of Transportation v. Association of American Rail-
roads, 575 U. S. 43, 80–81, n. 5 (2015) (opinion concurring
in judgment). Therefore, to the extent that the Court relies
on “ ‘separation of powers principles’ ” to rule against the
President, ante, at 8 (opinion of ROBERTS , C. J.), it is mis-
taken.

...​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf

 

[Darkwind]

President Trump used the authority granted to a President by Congress.

The dissent was spot on.

From Justice Thomas:

Congress authorized the President to “regulate . . . importation.” 50 U. S. C.​

§1702(a)(1)(B). Throughout American history, the author-​

ity to “regulate importation” has been understood to include​

the authority to impose duties on imports. Post, at 9–13,​

22–29 (KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting). The meaning of that​

phrase was beyond doubt by the time that Congress enacted​

this statute, shortly after President Nixon’s highly publi-​

cized duties on imports were upheld based on identical lan-​

guage. Post, at 14–22. The statute that the President relied​

on therefore authorized him to impose the duties on imports at issue in these cases. ​

​

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH makes clear​

that the Court errs in concluding otherwise.​

I write separately to explain why the statute at issue here​

is consistent with the separation of powers as an original​

matter. The Constitution’s separation of powers forbids​

Congress from delegating core legislative power to the Pres-​

ident. This principle, known as the nondelegation doctrine,​

is rooted in the Constitution’s Legislative Vesting Clause​

and Due Process Clause. Art. I, §1; Amdt. 5. Both Clauses​

forbid Congress from delegating core legislative power,​

which is the power to make substantive rules setting the​

conditions for deprivations of life, liberty, or property. Nei-​

ther Clause prohibits Congress from delegating other kinds​

of power. Because the Constitution assigns Congress many​

powers that do not implicate the nondelegation doctrine,​

Congress may delegate the exercise of many powers to the​

President. Congress has done so repeatedly since the​

founding, with this Court’s blessing.​

​

The power to impose duties on imports can be delegated.​

At the founding, that power was regarded as one of many powers over foreign commerce that could be delegated to the President. Power over foreign commerce was not within​

the core legislative power, and engaging in foreign com-​

merce was regarded as a privilege rather than a right.​

Early Congresses often delegated to the President power to​

regulate foreign commerce, including through duties on im-​

ports. As I suggested over a decade ago, the nondelegation​

doctrine does not apply to “a delegation of power to make​

rules governing private conduct in the area of foreign​

trade,” including rules imposing duties on imports. Depart-​

ment of Transportation v. Association of American Rail-​

roads, 575 U. S. 43, 80–81, n. 5 (2015) (opinion concurring​

in judgment). Therefore, to the extent that the Court relies​

on “ ‘separation of powers principles’ ” to rule against the​

President, ante, at 8 (opinion of ROBERTS , C. J.), it is mis-​

taken.​

​

...​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf

Yep. Tariffs are NOT going away.

 

[EMH]

Tariffs are FOREIGN POLICY and hence the Executive Branch handles it. The Congress can certify that, and the Prez can sign it.


What SCOTUS has done here is absolutely outrageous, dumping a mess back on America that is clearly part of what the American people voted for in 2024. SCOTUS is making foreign policy. SCOTUS is saying if another country is screwing us in trade, they must get the same treatment as a country NOT doing that.

Time for Mike and Thune to show they actually care about America....

 

[excalibur]

Further:

Since the 1790s, Congress has consistently delegated to
the President power over foreign commerce, including the
power to impose duties on imports. "

'Practically every volume of the United States Statutes' " contains broad delega-
tions to the President in the area of foreign commerce. Id.,
at 80, n. 5 (quoting Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U. S.,
at 324).

...

Congress likewise delegated to the President the power
to set duties on imports. In 1815, Congress delegated to the
President the power to lower reciprocal duties when he was
"satisfied" that other nations' trade practices no longer op-
erated "to the disadvantage of the United States." Act of
Mar. 3, 1815, ch. 77, 3 Stat. 224.

In 1824, Congress delegated to the President the power to lower and to reim-
pose duties in response to foreign nations' trade practices.
See Act of Jan. 7, 1824, 4 Stat. 2–3. Throughout the early
decades of the Republic, Congress continued to delegate to
the President similar powers over duties on imports on a
regular basis. See, e.g., Act of May 24, 1828, ch. 111, 4 Stat.
308; Act of May 31, 1830, ch. 219, 4 Stat. 425; Act of July
13, 1832, ch. 207, 4 Stat. 578–579. Presidents frequently
changed the rates of duties on imports as to various foreign
nations pursuant to these delegations.​

 

[InstantOn]

You may like the dissents, but DISSENTS ARE NOT LAW!

 

[excalibur]

From the Kavanaugh dissent.

Numerous laws such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962
and the Trade Act of 1974 continue to authorize the
President to place tariffs on foreign imports in a variety of
circumstances, and Presidents have often done so.

In recent years, Presidents George W. Bush, Obama, and
Biden have all imposed tariffs on foreign imports under
those statutory authorities.​

 

[Blaster]

The judges with the highest IQ's dissented.

 

[task0778]

From the Kavanaugh dissent.

Numerous laws such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962​

and the Trade Act of 1974 continue to authorize the​

President to place tariffs on foreign imports in a variety of​

circumstances, and Presidents have often done so. ​

​

In recent years, Presidents George W. Bush, Obama, and​

Biden have all imposed tariffs on foreign imports under​

those statutory authorities.​

"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."

You don't seem to get it; it isn't that Trump can't impose tariffs, obviously he certainly can as have many presidents before him. But at issue is the law under which he did so, which the Supreme Court is saying he can't do under that law. So, he's going to try again under other legislation, as you mention in you post.

 

[TNHarley]

My question is, where does the constitution give congress the ability to legislate its duties away to other branches of the government?

 

[excalibur]

My question is, where does the constitution give congress the ability to legislate its duties away to other branches of the government?

James Madison.

James Madison proposed an
amendment clarifying that the President had the power “ ‘to
execute such other powers’ ” as were “ ‘delegated by the na-
tional Legislature,’ ” so long as the delegated powers were
“ ‘ “not Legislative nor Judiciary in their nature.” ’ ” 1 Rec-
ords of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 67 (M. Farrand
ed. 1966).

Thus, in Madison’s view, some of Congress’s pow-
ers were “not Legislative” and could be “delegated” to the
President. Ibid. Madison’s proposal was rejected after oth-
ers argued that it was unnecessary. Ibid.

Madison agreed that the purpose of the proposed amendment was only to
“prevent doubts and misconstructions.” Ibid. Nobody dis-
puted that Madison stated the correct scope of the nondele-
gation doctrine. Ibid.; see also McConnell 332 (“[W]e can
infer [from Madison’s motion] that the framers understood
that Congress would be able to delegate its royal preroga-
tive powers back to the President”).​

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Tariffs)

www.scotusblog.com

 

[excalibur]

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The triplets of course did what they always do, damn the law, if Trump is for it, they automatically are against it.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Yes, it makes no sense that they UPHELD that Biden could force vaccines on people but Trump couldn't impose Tariffs, with tariffs having been imposed by dozens of presidents before him.

 

[task0778]

Yes, it makes no sense that they UPHELD that Biden could force vaccines on people but Trump couldn't impose Tariffs, with tariffs having been imposed by dozens of presidents before him.

The Supreme Court didn't rule that Trump couldn't impose tariffs, they said he can't do it under the legislation he used to authorize those tariffs. So, he's gonna do it another way, maybe this time the SC will allow it. Or maybe not.

 

[skye]

 

[Marener]

Cry harder.

 

[popscottpopscott]

U.S. presidents have commonly imposed or signed into law tariffs as a means to regulate importation, protect domestic industries, raise revenue, address trade imbalances, retaliate against foreign practices, or safeguard national security

page 112 Kavanaugh dissent
""throughout American history, Presidents have commonly imposed tariffs as a means to “regulate . . . importation.”"

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf

Herbert Hoover (1930): Signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which dramatically increased tariffs on over 20,000 imported products to safeguard agriculture and industry during the early Great Depression, though it provoked international retaliation.

Gerald Ford (1970s): Raised oil import tariffs by 60% under proclaimed authority, citing national security needs to regulate petroleum importation.

Richard Nixon (1971): Imposed a temporary 10% import surcharge on many goods during a balance-of-payments crisis, using emergency powers to regulate imports.

Ronald Reagan (1980s): Imposed 100% tariffs on certain Japanese electronics to punish violations of trade agreements and protect U.S. markets.

George W. Bush (2000s): Imposed up to 30% steel tariffs on imports from nearly all countries to protect the domestic steel industry.

 

[InstantOn]

Once again: DISSENTS ARE NOT LAW.

 

[Rawley]

Cry harder.

Brilliant analysis. Just brilliant.

 

[drudge X]

The Supreme Court didn't rule that Trump couldn't impose tariffs, they said he can't do it under the legislation he used to authorize those tariffs. So, he's gonna do it another way, maybe this time the SC will allow it. Or maybe not.

Trump already planned for this. The SC is not gonna reverse the tariffs already paid. That would be major clusterfuck. Either way, tariffs aren’t going anywhere.