Kavanaugh’s Embarrassing Tariff Dissent (w/ Andrew Weissmann) | Illegal News

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that former President Trump exceeded his authority by imposing tariffs, as Congress had not clearly delegated the power to tax to the executive branch. The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to impose taxes and tariffs, and the Court found no statutory basis for the President's unilateral action.

The Supreme Court struck down Trump's tariffs... the president was overstepping his congressional authority that the statute that Congress enacted that allows for regulating does not use the term tariffs and does not use the term taxation... the Constitution is darn clear that it's a congressional power.

While six justices agreed on the outcome, their reasoning diverged. Conservative justices (Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch) applied the 'major questions doctrine,' requiring explicit delegation for significant issues. Liberal justices (Sotomayor, Jackson, Kagan) reached the same conclusion by simply interpreting the statute's text and context, avoiding endorsement of the major questions doctrine, which they view as a conservative tool to limit administrative power.

The three more conservative... believe in the major questions doctrine, they took the view which is well there's nothing more major than billions and billions of dollars of taxation... Justice Ken says it she's never been a fan of the major questions doctrine... we don't need it. You can just look at what happened here and you can look at the statute and you can see that it wasn't delegated.

Justice Kavanaugh's dissenting opinion was sharply criticized by Chief Justice Roberts and the host for parroting the government's brief and inappropriately outlining ways for the executive to circumvent the ruling. This behavior was seen as lacking judicial temperament and depth, suggesting a departure from expected judicial conduct.

The catty comment that Justice Roberts said about it which was he basically said and um the descent which tracks word for word the government's brief... he laid out what in his view was the way to get around the decision... I think there's a real lack of sort of judicial temperament... and I agree with you I don't see the depth.

The tariff ruling is framed as a significant check on executive power, akin to the 1952 Youngstown Steel case where President Truman's attempt to seize steel mills was struck down. Both cases involved a 6-3 split and emphasized the dangers of unchecked presidential authority, with Justice Robert Jackson's famous concurrence from Youngstown being heavily cited in the current ruling, warning against the growth of executive power.

The case yesterday is I think the is sort of the book end of Youngsttown Steel... It is the really the last time in 1952 that you saw such a important huge issue of presidential power being struck down by the Supreme Court notably by the same six to three split... that language from the Youngsttown concurrence is all over the chief justice's opinion yesterday.

The Court's decision to limit presidential power in the tariff case stands in tension with its recent ruling granting broad presidential immunity, creating an apparent inconsistency in its approach to executive authority. This suggests the Court may be reacting to perceived abuses of power, attempting to reassert checks and balances after previously expanding executive protections.

The same courts basically have made uh did the immunity decision and did this one and so how are we supposed to reconcile how they think about executive power looking at these two decisions... they have seen the abuse. They have seen um the use of the military domestically.