Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article suggesting “[t]he Supreme Court appeared skeptical . . . that President Donald Trump has legal authority to impose tariffs”;
- an article similarly reporting a “majority of Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical . . . about President Donald Trump’s ability to unilaterally impose far-reaching tariffs, putting at risk a cornerstone of his agenda in the biggest legal test yet of his boundary-pushing presidency”;
- an article also indicating “U.S. Supreme Court justices raised doubts . . . over the legality of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs,” but recognizing that “some of the conservative justices also stressed the inherent authority of presidents in dealing with foreign countries, suggesting the court could be sharply divided in the outcome of the case”; and
- a blog post suggesting “a majority of the justices appeared to agree with the small businesses and states challenging the tariffs” on the ground “that they exceeded the powers given to the president under a federal law providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats.”
Justin Jouvenal authored an article for the Washington Post suggesting “[t]he Supreme Court appeared skeptical . . . that President Donald Trump has legal authority to impose tariffs.” In the article, Jouvenal indicated “[l]iberal justices were expected to be critical of Trump’s tariffs, but several of the court’s conservatives joined them in sharply questioning an attorney for the Trump administration.” Jouvenal went on to say “[t]he case is the most significant dispute over the president’s policies to reach the high court to date and the first in which the justices could be called on to render a final decision, and the stakes could hardly be higher.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Lindsay Whitehurst wrote an article for the Associated Press similarly reporting a “majority of Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical . . . about President Donald Trump’s ability to unilaterally impose far-reaching tariffs, putting at risk a cornerstone of his agenda in the biggest legal test yet of his boundary-pushing presidency.” According to Whitehurst, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said President Trump’s tariffs “are primarily about regulating foreign commerce to be fairer, rather than raising money that would encroach on Congress’s taxation power.” Whitehurst described the challengers as arguing “the tariffs amount to a domestic tax because they are largely paid by Americans.” Whitehurst noted “[t]hree conservative justices raised questions about whether an emergency law gives Trump near-limitless power to set and change duties on imports.” Again, for more information on this case, check out the relevant case page.
Andrew Chung, John Kruzel and Jan Wolfe authored an article for Reuters also indicating “U.S. Supreme Court justices raised doubts . . . over the legality of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs,” but recognizing that “some of the conservative justices also stressed the inherent authority of presidents in dealing with foreign countries, suggesting the court could be sharply divided in the outcome of the case.” The authors point out that “[c]onservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled potential sympathy for Trump, pushing back on the argument that Trump had done something novel that could implicate the doctrine.” The authors explain how “Kavanaugh noted that President Richard Nixon imposed a worldwide tariff under IEEPA’s predecessor statute in the 1970s that contained similar language regarding regulation of importation.” The authors also observed how Chief Justice Roberts, “while questioning a lawyer for the private business challengers,” noted that “Trump’s tariffs have undoubtedly given him leverage in making foreign trade agreements.” For more information on this case, check out the relevant case page.
Amy Howe penned a blog post for SCOTUSblog suggesting “a majority of the justices appeared to agree with the small businesses and states challenging the tariffs” on the ground “that they exceeded the powers given to the president under a federal law providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats.” Howe indicated that Solicitor General D. John Sauer “faced a barrage of questions from the court’s liberal justices.” Howe also noted that “[a]dditional skepticism came from Justice Neil Gorsuch, who raised two related objections to the powers that Trump is claiming.” Justice Samuel Alito, on the other hand, according to Howe, “seemed sympathetic to the administration’s arguments” and told the challengers that “statutes that confer real emergency powers are often phrased quite broadly.” Again, for more information on this case, check out the relevant case page.