WASHINGTON (AP) — Three lower courts have ruled that President Donald Trump’s use of worldwide emergency powers is illegal. customs duty. now supreme courtThree judges appointed by President Trump, who generally favor strong presidential power, will make the final decision.
about 2 dozen emergency appealthe justices largely agreed with President Trump in allowing some of his aggressive second-term plans to temporarily take effect while the lawsuit progresses.
But the case being heard Wednesday is the first in which a court will make a final decision on President Trump’s policies. The stakes are huge, both politically and financially.
President Trump has made tariffs a central part of his economic and foreign policy, and said it would be a “disaster” if the Supreme Court ruled against him.
Here’s what you need to know about the tariff debate before the Supreme Court.
Customs duty is a tax on imported goods.
These costs are paid by companies that import finished goods and components, and the additional costs can be passed on to consumers.
By September, the government reported collecting $195 billion in revenue generated from tariffs.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs, but President Trump is asserting extraordinary constitutional power to act without Congressional approval by declaring a national emergency. International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.
In February, he invoked legislation imposing tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying: influx of illegal immigrants and Drugs crossing the US border The three countries argued that this amounted to a national emergency and that further efforts were needed to prevent it.
He declared America’s long-standing trade deficit a “national emergency” and imposed tariffs worldwide in April.
Libertarian-backed companies and states challenged tariffs in federal court
Challengers of President Trump’s actions have won decisions in specialized trade courts, a district judge in Washington, and a business-focused appeals court also located in the nation’s capital.
Those courts found that Trump could not justify the tariffs under the Emergency Powers Act, which does not mention tariffs. But in the meantime, they kept the tariffs in place.
The Court of Appeals held that “ Main questiona doctrine developed by the Supreme Court that requires Congress to speak clearly on issues of “extreme economic and political importance.”
The ‘key questions’ principle doomed some Biden policies
The conservative majority rejected three separate initiatives related to the coronavirus pandemic. The court ended a moratorium on evictions, blocked vaccination requirements for large corporations and blocked student loan forgiveness that would total $500 billion over 10 years.
By comparison, the stakes in customs litigation are much higher. This tax is estimated to generate $3 trillion over 10 years.
Challengers in the tariff case asked the court to apply similar restrictions to Trump’s policies, citing the work of three Trump-appointed justices, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
Barrett explained that the babysitter took the children on roller coaster rides and spent the night in a hotel at the parents’ encouragement to “entertain the children.”
“Permission to spend money on entertainment would normally allow a babysitter to take the children to the local ice cream parlor or movie theater rather than a multi-day excursion to an out-of-town amusement park,” Barrett wrote in his student loan lawsuit. “If a parent gave the green light for a trip this big, they would expect far more specific instructions than the general directive, ‘Let the kids have fun.'”
However, Kavanaugh suggested that the court should not apply the same restrictive standard to foreign policy and national security issues.
The dissenting appellate judges also wrote that Congress intentionally gave the president greater latitude to act through the Emergency Powers Act.
Some of the companies that filed the lawsuit also raised other legal arguments in their appeals to the conservative justices, arguing that Congress cannot constitutionally delegate taxing authority to the president.
The so-called nondelegation doctrine hasn’t been used in 90 years, ever since the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal bills.
But in June, Mr. Gorsuch wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that the Federal Communications Commission’s universal service fee is unconstitutional. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas also joined in the dissent.
“What happens when Congress, tired of the hard work of lawmaking and faced with strong incentives to shift profits, cedes its legislative power to an executive branch that clearly and unmistakably craves it?” Gorsuch wrote.
Judges may act more quickly than usual in issuing sentences
The court just agreed to hear the case in September, with arguments scheduled for less than two months. At least by the Supreme Court’s standards, this swift response suggests the court is willing to act quickly.
High-profile lawsuits can take more than six months to resolve because the majority opinion and dissenting opinion are repeatedly amended.
However, courts can act quickly when deadline pressure is necessary. Most recently, a week after hearing arguments in the TikTok case, the court unanimously upheld a law requiring the popular social media app to be banned unless it was sold by its Chinese parent company. President Trump has intervened several times to prevent the law from taking effect while negotiations with China continue.
