On Wednesday, President Donald Trump announced Brand new tariffs Almost everything imported into the United States. Among other things, tariffs include a minimum of 10% of import tax outside North America, different rates of marijuana on Canadian and Mexican goods, a 25% tax on automobile production outside the United States, and a confusion of rural-specific tariffs ranging from 10% to 50%.
Trump’s tariffs could bring a major self-hit to the U.S. economy. As of this writing, the S&P 500 (a common index used to track U.S. stock prices) is Reduced by about 4%. Yale University’s budget lab predicts tariffs will result in adequate inflation to be effective Reduce average annual income for American households by $3,789 At 2024 price. A similar analysis forecast by Niven Winchester, professor of economics at Auckland Technical University $3,487 Knocking American Family.
Trump’s second presidency so far is A series of gaze competitions between Trump and the court. Trump’s tariffs could lead to another, although the answer to whether the lawsuit challenges their possible success is Not clear yet. Not only because the Supreme Court has Showing great attention to Trump In recent years. Federal laws responsible for tariffs give the president a wide range of mandates on trade policies, especially tariff rates. The courts are focused only on texts that follow federal law and may maintain Trump’s tariffs.
But the current Supreme Court is not such a court. During the Biden administration, the Republican majority in the court frequently A new legal theory called “main problem” is used To set the executive branch down, they think it is too ambitious. According to the doctrine, the court should be particularly suspicious of the actions of the executive branch.Great economic and political significance” – For example, a new tax policy could cost thousands of dollars a year for the average American family.
Main issues Not found in the Constitution or federal regulations. It’s quite new, the court never explained its origins and seems to be entirely composed of Republican judges. Therefore, it is difficult to predict whether these judges apply it to Republican presidents, or whether they believe that Trump’s tariffs violate this completely arbitrary doctrine.
Nevertheless, the arguments on the main issue of Trump’s tariff violations are simple, and it is easy for judges to write an opinion on this conclusion.
It seems Republican judges, especially those appointed by Trump, would hesitate to apply the doctrine in ways that hurt him. However, judicial politics Not always fully consistent with the actions of elected officials.
Federal judges serve life, so if they break in with the president of the same party, they don’t have to worry about election retaliation. Justices sometimes have ideological commitments that make them loyal to partisan political leaders pushing any brief agenda at any given moment. Main issues Concentrate powermembers of the judiciary may find attractive. The decision to apply the doctrine to the Republican president will help legitimize it because Previously only used for Biden.
In other words, there is a very real opportunity for five justices to commit them to judicial oversight of executives rather than their commitment to Trump – reducing his tariffs in the process.
Federal law gives Trump the power to impose a lot of tariffs
In his Executive Order Trump announces the latest round of tariffs, claiming to be entitled to various federal laws, including International emergency economic power law and Trade Act of 1974. While these laws do impose some restrictions on Trump and his subordinates, these restrictions are largely procedural and impose few substantial restrictions on the scope and size of tariffs.
Under a provision of the Trade Act, such as U.S. Trade Representative, Cabinet-level posts Currently owned by Jamieson Greercertain findings must be made, such as determining that foreign conduct “is unreasonable, burdening or limiting U.S. business” or that the country’s actions “are unreasonable or discriminating or restricting U.S. business” before the U.S. may impose new tariffs.
Once Greer does this, The administrative power of tax imports is extensive. The government may “determine appropriate laws, fees or restrictions on foreign services such as foreign services, impose duties on goods or other import restrictions on goods.”
Meanwhile, Trump’s latest executive order appears to rely heavily on his power to regulate trade after declaring a national emergency – the order Make such a statement In response to his marked “the domestic economic policy of major trading partners and structural imbalances in the global trading system.”
It is worth noting that the law only allows the president to declare such an emergency”Handle any exception and extraordinary threatsin all or substantial parts outside the United States, “but the law does not define terms such as “national emergency” or “usual and extraordinary threats.”
Once an emergency is declared, According to regulations, the president’s power is quite extensive. Trump can regulate “property that any foreign country or any country has or has any interest.”
The court has not paid much attention to the text of federal law in its main issue decisions
Although the legal text that governs the president’s tariff mandate gives Trump and his administration the authorization, another law called the law is also called Heroic behavior. The law gives the Education Minister a scope to “waive or modify” the student loan obligation “is the necessary secretary deems to be related to war or other military operations or national emergencies” such as Covid Pandemic.
But the Republican majority in the court is effortless Biden v. Nebraska (2023), defeating a competitive management program that will forgive most borrowers for their $10,000 student loans.
Nebraska Relying on the doctrine of the main problem at least in part, claiming that student loan forgiveness programs are illegal because it is too big. Six Republican judges claimed in this view that “the ‘economic and political significance’ of the secretary’s actions are shocking in any measure.
Meanwhile, Trump’s tariffs involve similar dazzling numbers. According to the Census Bureau, There are about 127 million households in the United States. If Yale’s budget lab is correct, the average household will lose $3,789 in real annual income due to Trump’s tariffs, meaning U.S. consumers will face a staggering loss of more than $480 billion in real income.
Fairly Nebraska It also pointed out the so-called “The unprecedented nature of the secretary’s cancellation plan“To justify its conclusions, Trump may be able to point to the precedent of the kind of broad tariffs he recently announced. In 1971, President Richard Nixon A 10% tariff is temporarily imposed Almost all foreign goods, Federal Court of Appeals upheld the tariff. However, it is worth noting that Congress has amended some of the laws that Nixon relied on more than half a century ago.
Furthermore, there seems to be some debate on whether the doctrine of the main question applies to laws delegating power directly to the president, such as the Heroes Act, which gives regulations to cabinet secretary or other institutional-level officials.
exist Nebraska v. SU (2024), for example, the Biden administration believes that the doctrine does not apply to the president. Although the federal appeals court heard the case but failed to meet the issue, Trump-appointed judge Ryan Nelson argued that it was indeed because separating power involves decisions like that. Nebraska The same applies regardless of whether the president exercises executive power or one of his subordinates.
It is impossible to guess whether the current justices will rule that Nixon’s precedent proof puts the main problem on hold, or whether they will conclude that the doctrine does not apply to Trump. Again, the doctrine is completely new, not based on any constitutional or statutory text, and seems to be composed entirely of the Republican majority in the court. So asking if this fake doctrine applies to a president is a bit like asking your daughter if she wants to dance. The answer is what she wants.
Still, the case of bringing the theory of the main problem to Trump’s tariffs is at least as strong as the argument applied to Biden’s student loan forgiveness program. Moreover, the court has been In the past, Trump was particularly protectedhave Cynical Partisan Causes In this case, why might its Republican majority want to apply the doctrine of the main problem to Trump? Republicans could be overwhelmed in the next election if Trump tanks make economic tanks with his tariffs.
