Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article reporting how the “Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs that he pursued under a law meant for use in national emergencies”;
- an article discussing how the Supreme Court’s tariff decision undercuts President Trump’s “signature economic policy” and delivers Trump’s “biggest legal defeat since he returned to the White House”;
- an article explaining how the Supreme Court “ruled that the tariffs exceed the powers given to the president by Congress under a 1977 law providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats”; and
- an article identifying “six takeaways from the decision” by the Supreme Court.
Andrew Chung and John Kruzel authored an article for Reuters reporting how the “Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs that he pursued under a law meant for use in national emergencies.” The authors explain how the Court upheld the Federal Circuit’s “decision that Trump’s use of this 1977 law exceeded his authority.” The authors describe how the “Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, had allowed Trump’s expansive exertion of presidential powers in other areas in a series of rulings issued on an emergency basis.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Greg Stohr authored an article for Bloomberg Law discussing how the Supreme Court’s tariff decision undercuts President Trump’s “signature economic policy” and delivers Trump’s “biggest legal defeat since he returned to the White House.” Stohr observes how the Court “didn’t address the extent to which importers are entitled to refunds, leaving it to” the Federal Circuit “to sort out those issues.” According to Stohr, President Trump “said at a press conference that he will reimpose some tariffs using alternative legal tools,” and the “fall-back options tend to be either more cumbersome or more limited than the wide-ranging powers Trump asserted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.” Again, for more information on this case, check out the relevant case page.
Amy Howe authored an article for SCOTUSblog explaining how the Supreme Court “ruled that the tariffs exceed the powers given to the president by Congress under a 1977 law providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats.” Howe points out that, in the controlling opinion, Chief Justice Roberts indicated that “interpreting the word ‘regulate’ in IEEPA to include the power to tax ‘would render IEEPA partly unconstitutional’ because it gives the president the power to regulate importation or exportation, but the Constitution specifically bars taxes on exports.” Howe further explains how, in a part of Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion “joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Roberts said that Trump’s reliance on IEEPA to impose the tariffs violated the ‘major questions’ doctrine – the idea that if Congress wants to delegate the power to make decisions of vast economic or political significance, it must do so clearly.” Howe also highlights Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent, noting how, “[i]n Kavanaugh’s view, Trump had the authority under IEEPA to impose the tariffs because they ‘are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation.’” Again, for more information on this case, check out our case page.
The New York Times published an article identifying “six takeaways from the decision” by the Court. According to the Times, this ruling represents “a relatively rare instance of the court imposing a check on efforts in his second term to expand presidential power.” The Times go on to suggest the decision “marked a muscular show of independence by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.” As for the impact of the decision, the article highlights “new uncertainty for the federal budget,” given that the “tariffs were expected to raise about $3 trillion in revenue over the next nine years.” Again, for more information on this case, head over to our case page.