The Trump administration formally asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday night to decide whether President Donald Trump The ever-changing tariff policy is legal. Both federal courts and a total of 10 federal judges concluded that this is not.
Trump’s petition calls for the justice to accept the case, which is called Trump vs. VOS Choiceit begins with a long list of factual claims that would force judges to lower tariffs if the court takes it seriously. But that would assume that the Republican-controlled Supreme Court imposes the same restrictions on Trump’s executive power Improving Democratic President Joe Biden – Highly uncertain propositions.
Under the “main issue theory” of Republican judges, tariffs are obviously illegal
During the Biden administration, Republican justices rely on so-called “Main issues“Several policies to combat Biden. The court’s Republicans have only recently invented the doctrine. It has no legal basis, and only one president in history has been used with one president: Joe Biden.
That is, the court did preview the doctrine in an Obama-era decision that applied it to hypothetical statutes. in this case, Practical Air Conditioning Group v. EPA (2014), the Republican justice announced: “We hope Congress wants to assign it to proxy decisions with huge economic and political significance.
Indeed, under Biden, the court even used the recent makeup theory Cancel policies expressly authorized by federal law. exist Biden v. Nebraska (2023), Republican justices defeated the Biden administration’s attempt to cancel many student loans. However, federal law cannot make it clearer that administrative staff will be allowed to cancel these loans.
this Related regulations During national emergencies such as Covid-19-19pemic, the Education Secretary is granted extensive powers to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to the Student Financial Aid Program.” In addition, the Secretary can use this power, “despite other laws, unless specifically mentioned” regulations authorize him to cancel the loan.
Nevertheless, the Republican justice overturned the statute, pointing out that the high-priced label of canceling the plan isBetween $469 billion and $519 billion. “They concluded that the “economic and political significance” of such a plan was “shocking anyway.” “The program must be cancelled.
This brings us back to Trump The petition requires the Supreme Court to hear the tariff case. The petition describes tariffs as Trump’s “most important economic and foreign policy initiative.” It claims tariffs are necessary to eliminate the “$1.2 trillion per year” of U.S. trade deficit. It claims tariffs have given Trump a leverage to withdraw trillions of dollars in concessions from foreign countries. It also claims that Trump’s unilateral taxation on imports increases – tax revenue To a large extent paid by US consumers – ”Will reduce the federal deficit by $4 trillion in the next few years. ”
In other words, Trump claims that the economic significance of these tariffs is an order of magnitude greater than the significance of the student loan program in question Nebraska – Republican judges said they had to strike because its meaning was “shocking in any way”.
To be sure, it is by no means a good idea to make its decision based on factual claims made by that particular government. But independent analysis confirms that the economic and political significance of tariffs is at least as “stunning” as the importance of Biden’s student loan program. For example Raise $2.7 trillion in taxes In the window of 10 years.
At least one Republican in the court seems to believe that the main problem doctrine does not apply to Trump
Then, it seems quite simple to ask the main question, the doctrine forces the court to invalidate Trump’s tariffs. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh seems to be looking for a way to save Trump. agree FCC vs. Consumer Research (2025), Kavanaugh suggested that this new invention doctrine does not apply to the “foreign policy environment.”
Trump’s petition also suggests The court can exempt him from other ways From this doctrine, including when the President personally authorizes federal policy rather than enacted through federal agencies, the doctrine does not apply.
Are these arguments convincing? The truth is that no persuasive argument involves the doctrine of the main problem, because the whole thing is a fiction of the imagination of the Republican justices. The court has Never published Most opinions claim that the doctrine can be found in any provision of the Constitution or in any federal regulations. Although some people have provided their own explanations of the origins of the doctrines recently invented, these explanations range from stupid to absurd.
agree NebraskaFor example, Judge Amy Coney Barrett claimed that the doctrine was Implicit in the nanny’s fable.
Ask if the doctrine applies to foreign policy decisions, in other words, it’s a bit like asking your daughter if her imagined friend likes fried chicken. The answer is everything your daughter wants.
As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his consent earlier this year, “the doctrines developed by judges may be difficult to apply” because these courts “Lack of basic legal authority. “If the main question is derived from constitutional provisions, then the judge can read the provision to determine whether foreign policy exceptions are included.
But since the main problem is made up of Republican judges, there is no principled way to determine whether it conveniently contains an exception, just happening to save the Republican president’s “most important economic and foreign policy initiative” from invalidation.
That is, the courts should apply the same rules to democratic presidents who apply to Republicans. If the Republican justices actually bought Trump’s claim that he was an exemption, there would be no doubt that these judges were Just playing Calvin – Make a set of rules for Democrats and a more favorable set of rules for Republicans.
