Two of the three cases are currently on the Supreme Court, one of which may land immediately at the Justice’s doorstep Tuesday, with President Donald Trump claiming that if he is competent, he will have nearly full control over all U.S. fiscal and monetary policy.
First is a lawsuit against Trump’s tariffs. The court plans to hear two challenges to tariffs called Trump vs. VOS Choice and Learning Resources v Trump,November.
At least 10 federal judges concluded that Trump goes beyond his authority When he imposed many ever-changing import taxes, these taxes defined his second term. And the amount here is huge – Trump’s lawyers estimate tariffsWill reduce the federal deficit by $4 trillion in the next few years. “Yale University’s Budget Laboratory They are estimated to raise $2.4 trillion If they remain in effect in 2026-35.
In other words, Trump claims to have the right to impose new taxes worth trillions of dollars without seeking Congressional legislation.
The second case is State Council v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Alliancecurrently in courtShadow Summary,” a mixture of contingency motions and other matters, the court often decides without explanation. AIDS vaccine Involved”Water storage,” a president refused to spend money, asking him to spend it under the federal appropriations law.
Until recently, there was a general consensus that seizures were illegal. exist Memorandum of the Ministry of Justice in 1969“It seems very difficult to develop a constitutional theory to justify the president’s refusal to comply with congressional directives,” wrote future chief judge William Rehnquist. Even the Republican majority in the current court have Express doubts about past water storage.
However, in an ominous sign that the court may allow Trump to seize funds, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a brief order last week Allow Trump to temporarily seize foreign aid funds The court held that AIDS vaccine case.
The final case is Trump v. Cookwhich is likely to arrive at the Supreme Court on Tuesday. chef Involved by Trump’s attempt to fire members of the Fed Council, a violation of federal regulations that only allow the federal government to be fired.reason. “Later Monday, the Federal Court of Appeal Denied Trump’s power – Although this has done this because of disagreements from judges who have worked in the Trump White House before.
The Fed has exerted great power over the U.S. economy, including Temporarily stimulate the economy At the expense of greater economic turmoil. Consequently, Congress has exempted the Fed’s leaders from presidential control to prevent the president from injecting cocaine into the economy in a politically favorable moment. But if Trump gains power to fire the feed governor, the insulation will end.
In other words, Trump seeks complete control of U.S. monetary policy. He seeks to cancel federal grants and even cancel powers throughout the federal program. He claims to have the right to raise trillions of dollars in new taxes through his ordinance.
The only fiscal power that Trump has not yet claimed is the power that is actually suitable for federal funds – that is, he chose to spend the power. The Constitution stipulates: “No money must be made from the Ministry of Finance, But due to legal grants”, which means that unless the Congress bill allows spending, it is unconstitutional to spend money on it.
However, in reality, if the Supreme Court grants Trump other powers he is seeking, his constitutional appropriation clause would be the child’s role. The mechanism to prevent federal officials from spending money illegally is Anti-defect methodwhich makes it a crime to spend more than Congress grants.
But Trump can pardon anyone who violates the criminal law. The Republican justice is already here Trump v. United States (2024), if Trump uses official power to commit crimes, he will not be prosecuted.
In other words, if Trump gets what he wants from the Supreme Court, he can master the authoritarian mandate of U.S. fiscal and monetary policy—fully entitled to tax and spend without having to make any meaningful checks from other departments of the government. There is a real risk to this court Show extraordinary respect for party leaderswill give Trump what he wants.
Trump claims to have the right to raise trillions of dollars in new taxes – Trump vs. VOS Choice
The power of taxation is probably the most terrible power any government has. Essentially, spend the fruits of people’s labor and money on the plans of the government’s own choice.
This is not to say that taxes are wrong. Tax funds basic humanitarian services such as Medicare or Medicaid. But they can also fund the conquering of the army. Or a secret policeman targeting a country’s own citizens.
Historically, the United States has prevented its taxation rights from becoming a tool of tyranny Grant this power to the elected Congress. The Constitution stipulates that “Parliament” rather than the President “has the right to collect and tax.” As mentioned above, it also asks Congress to determine how to spend the money – although Congress does indeed set up a wide range of appropriation bills and leave details on how to spend that money on the executive.
exist VOS selectionBut Trump claims power Raise new taxes worth trillions of dollars No first seeking Congress to allow this.
To be fair, Trump’s lawyers did argue that he had collected these taxes under existing federal laws – The International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (ieeepa) allows the president to “regulate…the transactions involved, any foreign country or its country’s property has any interest.” However, it is worth noting that the IEPA only allows the president to “respond to abnormal and extraordinary threats.”
But multiple federal judges have Rule now The law does not allow Trump to impose a large amount of tariffs. One argument is that the power to “regulate” imports does not include the power to tax them. Other judges pointed out that Trump has not actually determined the “abnormal or extraordinary threat” that can justify the tax.
Additionally, during the Obama and Biden administrations, Republican judges invented something called “main problem doctrine” that should prevent executives from crafting new policies.Huge “economic and political significance”.“The legal basis of this new doctrine is suspicious, the court has Actually only applies it to one president: President Joe Biden.
But the court should apply the same rules to the Republican presidents who apply to Democrats. Needless to say, the president’s decision to raise trillions of dollars in new taxes is a huge issue of economic and political significance.
Nevertheless, considering the court’s Trump’s scophantic treatmentit is obvious that the Republican justice will apply to him for the same rules for Biden.
Trump claims to have the right to unilaterally repeal the federal spending law – State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Alliance
AIDS vaccine Involved one Long-term controversy Regarding whether Trump can cancel about $4 billion in foreign aid funds, he must spend it under federal law. There are no serious cases, he has the right to do so under the Constitution. As Rehnquist wrote in his 1969 memorandum, it is “Extremely difficultEven arguments about this post were made.
However, Trump claims a loophole has been discovered, which will allow him to seize the funds. Controversial Law AIDS vaccine Ask the government to commit $4 billion By September 30. A separate law known as the Water Storage Control Act (ICA) allows Trump to demand that Congress repeal its legal obligation to spend money, and Give Congress a 45-day decision Agree to do so.
So Trump waited less than 45 days before the September 30 deadline and submitted his request to Congress. His lawyer argued that he was responsible for spending money when Congress considered his request. The spending obligations will then expire on September 30 and Trump will no longer spend money legally.
Things got worse. Trump claims that under the ICA, Only the US Auditor Generalwho is not AIDS vaccine The lawsuit is allowed to sue for illegal water storage. But this argument is obviously wrong. ICA A clear status “Nothing in this Act… shall not be construed as…in any way affecting any claim or defense of any party in relation to any seizure.”
There are also serious procedural problems in Trump’s case. Among other things, the ICA requires Trump to communicate its demand to Congress’s request to cancel his obligation to spend funds.Go to the House and Senate on the same day. “But, according to AIDS vaccine The plaintiff’s profileTrump transferred his request to the House of Representatives on August 28, but did not send it to the Senate until September 8.
If it is correct, it could invalidate all Trump’s arguments. Even if Trump is right, he can postpone his obligation to spend money 45 days by submitting a request to Congress, and he has not properly filed a request to Congress. Therefore, there is no delay in obligations.
In other words, Trump’s argument about water storage is very weak. If the Supreme Court does accept them, it is a worrying sign that they will not stop him from taking the future illegal reservoir.
The Fed’s presidential control – Trump v. Cook
Finally, there is Trump tries to fire Lisa Cookis the appointment of Biden from the Federal Reserve Board. Under the law, the Fed governor’s term is 14 years and can only be removed by the president “for reasons.”
Trump claimed he was allowed to fire the chef because she allegedly declared two separate properties as her primary residence, committing mortgage fraud. But this allegation seems to be wrong. Reuters reported that Cook declared one of them “Holiday home”, the lender knew it was not her primary residence.
If you want to know the legal details of this case, I will recommend you to the interpreter Recent information about it was posted here. In short, Republican justices have been expanding the president’s power to fire federal officials protected by law, but they said in their May decision that Fed leaders are still protected.
In any case, if Trump gains the power of a federal leader who does not comply with his wishes, the consequences can be disastrous. Prior to his re-election campaign in 1972, President Richard Nixon successfully put pressure on Federal Reserve Chairman Arthur Burns to lower interest rates. The economy took off briefly and Nixon won the historic landslide. But in the 1970s, Burns’ surrender was often accused of years of “stagnation”, slow economic growth and high inflation.
If Trump has the ability to do so, it is not difficult to imagine how to use power to boost the economy when politically favorable moments.
More importantly, if the Supreme Court will have full control over the Fed’s independence after reiterating last May, it will give the court its own credibility. This shows that the Republican majority in the court will not impose any restrictions on their own party’s president.
