Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
Three lower courts have ruled on the illegal president donald trumpUse of emergency powers to impose worldwide tariffs. Now Supreme CourtThree judges, appointed by Trump and generally in favor of strong presidential power, will have the final say.
In nearly two dozen emergency appeals, judges have largely sided with Trump, allowing parts of his aggressive second-term agenda to temporarily take effect while the trials proceed.
But the case being argued Wednesday is the first in which the court will give a final ruling on Trump policy. The stakes are huge, both politically and economically.
The Republican president has made tariffs a central part of his economic and foreign policy and has said it would be a “disaster” if the Supreme Court rules against them.
Here are some things to know about tariff arguments at the Supreme Court:
Tariffs are taxes imposed on imports
They are paid by companies that import finished products or parts, and the additional costs may be passed on to consumers.
As of September, the government reported collecting $195 billion in revenue generated from tariffs.
The Constitution provides Congress The power to impose tariffs, but Trump has claimed extraordinary power to act without congressional approval by declaring a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.
In February, he introduced legislation to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the U.S. border amounts to a national emergency and that all three countries need to do more to stop it.
In April, he imposed tariffs around the world after declaring the United States’ long-standing trade deficit a “national emergency.”
Liberal-backed businesses and states challenged the tariffs in federal court.
Those challenging Trump’s actions received rulings from a special trade court, a district judge Washington And a business-focused appeals court is also based in the nation’s capital.
Those courts found that Trump could not justify the tariffs under the emergency powers law, which does not mention them. But he left the tariffs in place in the meantime.
The appeals court relied on eminent domain questions, a legal doctrine devised by the Supreme Court that requires Congress to speak clearly on issues of “enormous economic and political importance.”
Key Question Theory ruined many of Biden’s policies
Conservative majority ousts three sitting presidents Joe BidenInitiatives related to the coronavirus pandemic. The court struck down Democrats’ moratorium on evictions, blocked vaccine mandates for big businesses and blocked student loan forgiveness that would have totaled $500 billion over 10 years.
In comparison, the stakes in a tariff case are much higher. The taxes are estimated to generate $3 trillion over 10 years.
Challengers in the tariff case have called on the court to impose similar limits on the signal Trump policy, citing writings by the three Trump-appointed justices, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
Barrett described having a babysitter take children on a roller coaster and spending a night in a hotel, based on a parent’s encouragement, “to make sure the kids have fun.”
Barrett wrote in the student loan case, “In general, permission to spend money on fun authorizes a babysitter to take children to the local ice cream parlor or movie theater, not to take them on a multi-day trip to an out-of-town amusement park.” “If a parent were willing to greenlight a trip of this magnitude, we would expect far more clarity than the general instruction to ‘make sure kids have fun’.”
However, Kavanaugh has suggested that the court should not apply the same limited standard to foreign policy and national security issues.
A dissenting appellate judge also wrote that Congress intentionally gave presidents more freedom to act through emergency powers legislation.
Some of the businesses suing are also raising a different legal argument in appeals before conservative judges, saying Congress cannot constitutionally delegate its taxing power to the president.
The nondelegation doctrine has not been used in 90 years, as the Supreme Court struck down some New Deal legislation.
But Gorsuch wrote a dissent in June that found the Federal Communications Commission’s universal service charge would have been an unconstitutional delegation. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined the dissent.
“What happens when Congress, tired of the difficult work of lawmaking and facing strong incentives to shoulder the responsibility, implicitly and explicitly cedes its lawmaking power to an executive that desires it?” Gorsuch wrote.
Judges may act more quickly than usual in issuing decisions
The court only agreed to hear the case in September, scheduling arguments for less than two months later. The quick turnaround, at least by Supreme Court standards, suggests the court will try to act quickly.
High-profile cases can take half a year or more to resolve, as majority and dissenting opinions often have to undergo rounds of vetting.
But when there is pressure of deadline, the court can take immediate action. Recently, the court delivered its verdict a week after hearing arguments in the TikTok case, unanimously upholding the law that required the popular social media app to be banned unless it was sold by its Chinese parent company. Trump has intervened several times to prevent the law from taking effect while negotiations with China continue.
,
Follow AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.