We’ve posted the second of two cross-posted articles with Law & Liberty in response to the Supreme Court ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump. Today, David Hebert explains why the economic fallout from the tariffs can’t be reversed by the Court’s ruling. From the article:
Just over a year ago, citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), President Trump began unilaterally changing tariff rates with countries around the world. The goal was to restructure global trade. Since this was the first time any president had used IEEPA in this way, it was always going to invite challenges.
In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled against the president. In November, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case. Last week, in Learning Resources v. Trump, the Court issued a 6-3 decision, making it clear that IEEPA does not give the president the power to unilaterally impose, rescind, and adjust tariffs as he sees fit. Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the majority’s opinion, held that tariffs are fundamentally a taxing power and that, because of this, they are different in kind, not just degree, from the trade tools that IEEPA explicitly authorizes.
This opinion is certainly an important legal victory, but we should not confuse it with an economic one. The damage of tariffs has already been done and it is continuing to be done.
We hope you’ll read the whole article, which you can find here.
(If you missed it, take a look at John O. McGinnis’ discussion of the legal implications of the ruling, too.)
