Thread: Why the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling is absurd on its face.

.
There is but two branches of our federal government authorized to establish foreign policy ___ our Congress and our Executive. The Court subtly admits if Congress authorizes the tariffs in question, all is well. Additionally, Congress delegated extraordinary powers under the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) of 1917. Nixon use used it to impose a temporary 10% universal tariff in 1971.

Our Supreme Court in United States v. Yoshida International (1975), affirmed that TWEA allowed the President to “regulate importation” during national emergencies. And Nixon did use TWEA to impose a 10% tariff.

The IEEPA was enacted in 1977 to replace the authorities previously held under the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) of 1917.

President Trump had invoked IEEPA in early 2025 to declare national emergencies related to drug trafficking (fentanyl), illegal immigration, and trade deficits, using these declarations to justify broad tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, and eventually almost all U.S. trading partners.

Under such circumstances it is abundantly obvious that Congress, and not our Supreme Court, is in a rightful position to say whether or not Trump’s tariffs go beyond the delegated power found in IEEPA.

Indeed, if Congress did find Trump had gone beyond what Congress authorized under IEEPA, it is authorized by the terms of our Constitution to adopt legislation forbidding Trump’s use of the power delegated under IEEPA.

By contrast, the Supreme Court ought to have found it has no authority to decide political questions, or interfere in policy making decisions of this nature, which is what the case was about from the beginning.

JWK

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

.
The 1930’s tariff Act, also known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, allows under Section 338, the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce.

The irrefutable fact is, Congress has delegated various broad powers to impose tariffs on other countries. The Supreme Court is not vested with power to meddle in policy making decisions of this kind.

.
Trump's tariffs fall within one or more of the following delegations of power by Congress, and are thus constitutional, unless Congress is not authorized to delegate such power:

Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338
Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962;
Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974;
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974;
And, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977

Keep in mind, nowhere in the S.C's. majority opinion does it find that Congress may not delegate the above mentioned authority to the President.

Trump's tariffs were, without question, constitutional.

.
A majority on our Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s imposed tariffs, and in doing so, the majority imposed its personal predilections as the rule of law rather than being obedient to the text of our Constitution and its documented “legislative intent” which gives context to its text.

In United States v. Yoshida International, Inc. (1975), the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) held that the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) authorized President Nixon’s temporary 10% import duty surcharge. The court specifically interpreted the “regulate… importation” language—which is identical to the language later included in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—as granting the President the power to impose such a surcharge during a national emergency.

Seems to me a President does have authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA if specific conditions are met as outlined in the Act and the conditions stated constitute a political question which is not within the Supreme Courts authority to decide.

Roberts should not have stuck his nose in this political question.

Madison concluded in Federalist No 47 that ”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Justice Roberts has certainly expose himself for the notoriously evil person he is by using his office of public trust to impose his personal predilections as the rule of law rather than being obedient to the text of our Constitution and its documented “legislative intent” which gives context to its text.​