Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article highlighting that “the major questions doctrine was a focal point” during the oral argument for President Trump’s tariffs case;
- a blog post discussing how, during the oral argument in President Trump’s tariffs case, “special attention” was given “to one verb in particular: the verb ‘regulate’”;
- an article suggesting, “[i]f the Supreme Court strikes down the IEEPA tariffs, the outcome will not be national collapse but relief”; and
- an article arguing “extensive quotes from Mr. Trump” in a key filing made by the government “may change the legal calculus” in President Trump’s tariffs case.
John Kruzel authored an article for Reuters highlighting that “the major questions doctrine was a focal point” during the oral argument in President Trump’s tariffs case. Kruzel points out how “conservative justices in recent years have embraced this doctrine, which requires executive branch actions of ‘vast economic and political significance’ to be clearly authorized by Congress.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Abbe Gluck penned a blog post for SCOTUSblog discussing how, during the oral argument in President Trump’s tariffs case, “special attention” was given “to one verb in particular: the verb ‘regulate.’” In the post, Gluck observes how “[t]he thrust of the debate was over how to interpret ‘regulate’ in a statutory list of nine verbs that, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, give the president emergency powers over certain activities, including ‘importation.’” Gluck suggests “a focused textual analysis offers the court a safer, more detached, off-ramp in a politics-infused case than broad pronouncements on presidential power.” Again, for more information on this case, check out the relevant case page.
Kyle Handley authored an article for the Cato Institute suggesting, “[i]f the Supreme Court strikes down the IEEPA tariffs, the outcome will not be national collapse but relief.” Handley argues “[o]nce emergency powers become bargaining chips,” trade partners will “stop believing that U.S. commitments will hold when it counts.” For more information on this case, check out the relevant case page.
Adam Liptak wrote an article for the New York Times arguing “extensive quotes from Mr. Trump” in a key filing made by the government “may change the legal calculus” in President Trump’s tariffs case. According to Liptak, “Mr. Trump . . . said in a speech hours after the hearing that ‘my tariffs are bringing in hundreds of billions of dollars.’” Liptak goes on to explain that “the Supreme Court places little weight on what presidents say in public settings.” Citing Jonathan Adler, a law professor at William & Mary, Liptak suggests “‘the government brief opened the door to considering the president’s statements by including them in the briefing, and that may enable the court to consider the president’s remarks when it would normally be very reluctant to do so.’” Again, for more information on this case, check out the relevant case page.