Supreme Court conservatives split sides with liberals in Trump tariffs ruling
This is performative politics again.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling striking down President Donald Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs did not fall on ideological lines, and it split the conservative majority down the middle in a consequential decision for Trump’s economic agenda.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion that found the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. While the high court has a 6-3 conservative majority, three of the conservative justices dissented, while the other three joined with all three liberal justices to form the majority. Among both the majority and the minority, some justices split on the nuances of the case.
Roberts writes majority while Gorsuch and Barrett write separate opinions concurring
Roberts’s majority was joined entirely by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, but both wrote separate opinions.
Gorsuch issued a lengthy concurrence examining the opinions wrote by Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Barrett, largely discussing the major questions doctrine, requiring Congress to explicitly delegate an agency or the president a power in the law in order for the executive branch to have it. He also nodded at people disappointed that Trump’s tariffs would be struck down by Friday’s ruling, arguing that Congress must be the one to issue tariffs.
“For those who think it important for the Nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today’s decision will be disappointing,” Gorsuch wrote. “All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason.”
“Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises,” he added. “But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man.”
Barrett used her concurrence to comment on Gorsuch’s opinion on the major questions doctrine, disagreeing with many aspects of his view.
“I understand Justice Gorsuch to require Congress always to speak precisely to any major power that it intends to give away,” Barrett wrote. “As I have said before, I think that other, ‘less obvious’ clues can do the trick. I do not see any …
This is performative politics again.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling striking down President Donald Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs did not fall on ideological lines, and it split the conservative majority down the middle in a consequential decision for Trump’s economic agenda.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion that found the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. While the high court has a 6-3 conservative majority, three of the conservative justices dissented, while the other three joined with all three liberal justices to form the majority. Among both the majority and the minority, some justices split on the nuances of the case.
Roberts writes majority while Gorsuch and Barrett write separate opinions concurring
Roberts’s majority was joined entirely by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, but both wrote separate opinions.
Gorsuch issued a lengthy concurrence examining the opinions wrote by Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Barrett, largely discussing the major questions doctrine, requiring Congress to explicitly delegate an agency or the president a power in the law in order for the executive branch to have it. He also nodded at people disappointed that Trump’s tariffs would be struck down by Friday’s ruling, arguing that Congress must be the one to issue tariffs.
“For those who think it important for the Nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today’s decision will be disappointing,” Gorsuch wrote. “All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason.”
“Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises,” he added. “But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man.”
Barrett used her concurrence to comment on Gorsuch’s opinion on the major questions doctrine, disagreeing with many aspects of his view.
“I understand Justice Gorsuch to require Congress always to speak precisely to any major power that it intends to give away,” Barrett wrote. “As I have said before, I think that other, ‘less obvious’ clues can do the trick. I do not see any …
Supreme Court conservatives split sides with liberals in Trump tariffs ruling
This is performative politics again.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling striking down President Donald Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs did not fall on ideological lines, and it split the conservative majority down the middle in a consequential decision for Trump’s economic agenda.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion that found the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. While the high court has a 6-3 conservative majority, three of the conservative justices dissented, while the other three joined with all three liberal justices to form the majority. Among both the majority and the minority, some justices split on the nuances of the case.
Roberts writes majority while Gorsuch and Barrett write separate opinions concurring
Roberts’s majority was joined entirely by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, but both wrote separate opinions.
Gorsuch issued a lengthy concurrence examining the opinions wrote by Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Barrett, largely discussing the major questions doctrine, requiring Congress to explicitly delegate an agency or the president a power in the law in order for the executive branch to have it. He also nodded at people disappointed that Trump’s tariffs would be struck down by Friday’s ruling, arguing that Congress must be the one to issue tariffs.
“For those who think it important for the Nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today’s decision will be disappointing,” Gorsuch wrote. “All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason.”
“Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises,” he added. “But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man.”
Barrett used her concurrence to comment on Gorsuch’s opinion on the major questions doctrine, disagreeing with many aspects of his view.
“I understand Justice Gorsuch to require Congress always to speak precisely to any major power that it intends to give away,” Barrett wrote. “As I have said before, I think that other, ‘less obvious’ clues can do the trick. I do not see any …
0 Comments
0 Shares
58 Views
0 Reviews
