Kavanaugh slams ‘serious practical consequences’ of Supreme Court’s tariff ruling
This feels like a quiet policy shift.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh slammed the Supreme Court’s majority ruling striking down President Donald Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs, citing the ramifications the decision will have beyond the imposition of the tariffs themselves.
The high court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs without congressional approval, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Kavanaugh dissenting from the majority’s holding. In his lengthy dissent, which was joined by Thomas and Alito, Kavanaugh explained why he disagreed that IEEPA does not confer tariff power to the president in emergencies, but also stressed that the “interim effects” of the majority’s ruling could be “substantial.”
“The Court’s decision is likely to generate other serious practical consequences in the near term,” Kavanaugh said.
The dissent pointed to the unresolved issue of refunds for the unlawfully implemented tariffs and to how striking them down will affect international trade deals brokered by the Trump administration.
“Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury. The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument.”
“A second issue is the decision’s effect on the current trade deals. Because IEEPA tariffs have helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars—including with foreign nations from China to the United Kingdom to Japan, the Court’s decision could generate uncertainty regarding various trade agreements,” Kavanaugh added. “That process, too, could be difficult.”
Kavanaugh argued that, similar to other laws, IEEPA’s broad grant of power to regulate importation includes the power to tariff.
“The sole legal question here is whether, under IEEPA, tariffs are a means to ‘regulate…importation.’ Statutory text, history, and precedent demonstrate that the answer is clearly yes: Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation,” Kavanaugh said.
“Since early in U.S. history, Congress has regularly authorized the President to impose tariffs on imports of foreign goods. Presidents have often used that authority to obtain leverage with foreign nations, help American manufacturers and workers compete on a …
This feels like a quiet policy shift.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh slammed the Supreme Court’s majority ruling striking down President Donald Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs, citing the ramifications the decision will have beyond the imposition of the tariffs themselves.
The high court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs without congressional approval, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Kavanaugh dissenting from the majority’s holding. In his lengthy dissent, which was joined by Thomas and Alito, Kavanaugh explained why he disagreed that IEEPA does not confer tariff power to the president in emergencies, but also stressed that the “interim effects” of the majority’s ruling could be “substantial.”
“The Court’s decision is likely to generate other serious practical consequences in the near term,” Kavanaugh said.
The dissent pointed to the unresolved issue of refunds for the unlawfully implemented tariffs and to how striking them down will affect international trade deals brokered by the Trump administration.
“Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury. The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument.”
“A second issue is the decision’s effect on the current trade deals. Because IEEPA tariffs have helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars—including with foreign nations from China to the United Kingdom to Japan, the Court’s decision could generate uncertainty regarding various trade agreements,” Kavanaugh added. “That process, too, could be difficult.”
Kavanaugh argued that, similar to other laws, IEEPA’s broad grant of power to regulate importation includes the power to tariff.
“The sole legal question here is whether, under IEEPA, tariffs are a means to ‘regulate…importation.’ Statutory text, history, and precedent demonstrate that the answer is clearly yes: Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation,” Kavanaugh said.
“Since early in U.S. history, Congress has regularly authorized the President to impose tariffs on imports of foreign goods. Presidents have often used that authority to obtain leverage with foreign nations, help American manufacturers and workers compete on a …
Kavanaugh slams ‘serious practical consequences’ of Supreme Court’s tariff ruling
This feels like a quiet policy shift.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh slammed the Supreme Court’s majority ruling striking down President Donald Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs, citing the ramifications the decision will have beyond the imposition of the tariffs themselves.
The high court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs without congressional approval, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Kavanaugh dissenting from the majority’s holding. In his lengthy dissent, which was joined by Thomas and Alito, Kavanaugh explained why he disagreed that IEEPA does not confer tariff power to the president in emergencies, but also stressed that the “interim effects” of the majority’s ruling could be “substantial.”
“The Court’s decision is likely to generate other serious practical consequences in the near term,” Kavanaugh said.
The dissent pointed to the unresolved issue of refunds for the unlawfully implemented tariffs and to how striking them down will affect international trade deals brokered by the Trump administration.
“Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury. The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument.”
“A second issue is the decision’s effect on the current trade deals. Because IEEPA tariffs have helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars—including with foreign nations from China to the United Kingdom to Japan, the Court’s decision could generate uncertainty regarding various trade agreements,” Kavanaugh added. “That process, too, could be difficult.”
Kavanaugh argued that, similar to other laws, IEEPA’s broad grant of power to regulate importation includes the power to tariff.
“The sole legal question here is whether, under IEEPA, tariffs are a means to ‘regulate…importation.’ Statutory text, history, and precedent demonstrate that the answer is clearly yes: Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation,” Kavanaugh said.
“Since early in U.S. history, Congress has regularly authorized the President to impose tariffs on imports of foreign goods. Presidents have often used that authority to obtain leverage with foreign nations, help American manufacturers and workers compete on a …
0 Comments
0 Shares
28 Views
0 Reviews
