Is this the most important Supreme Court case of the century?
The Supreme Court may have just helped save the Republic.
On Friday, a 6-3 majority struck down President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to implement sweeping global tariffs, including tariffs against Mexico, Canada and China.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch voted together — though for different reasons — to block one of the central elements of Trump’s foreign and economic policy. As Roberts explained in his opinion, in terms of sheer economic impact the case dwarfed many of the most contentious cases of the last several terms, including, for example, Biden v. Nebraska, the case blocking President Joe Biden’s student loan debt forgiveness program.
In fact, it may prove to be the most important Supreme Court decision this century. And if you think I’m being hyperbolic, let me explain.
First, the court blocked a monumental presidential power grab — one so big and so bold that it threatened the foundation of our constitutional system.
The chief justice’s opinion hinged on a legal principle called the “major questions doctrine” — the same doctrine that was used repeatedly to block the Biden administration’s regulations and orders.
As Gorsuch explained in his concurring opinion, the doctrine means, “When executive branch officials claim Congress has granted them an extraordinary power, they must identify clear statutory authority for it.”
In other words, relying on broad and vague statutory language, such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act’s grant of authority to presidents to “regulate” importation when he or she declares an emergency, isn’t precise enough to sweep away the Constitution’s explicit language granting taxing authority to Congress.
Other justices, including Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson, had an even simpler explanation for blocking the tariffs. As Kagan wrote in her concurring opinion, “Ordinary principles of statutory interpretation lead to the same result.”
‘Lawless scheme’
It’s not that words like “regulate” and “importation” aren’t precise enough to grant the president extraordinary powers. Instead, as Kagan wrote, “IEEPA’s key phrase — the one the government relies on — says nothing about imposing tariffs or taxes.”
And since the statute says nothing about tariffs or taxes, then the Trump administration can’t use it to prop up the president’s lawless scheme.
The majority’s reasoning alone makes the tariff case extraordinarily important.
For years, presidents of both parties have been using broad and vague language in federal statutes as a pretext for engaging in lawmaking in place of Congress.
The expansion of presidential power, which has accelerated exponentially under Trump, has placed our republican form of government under strain. When presidents yank power from Congress, they begin to assume the role of an elected monarch — the exact opposite of the framers’ intent.
Gorsuch explained this masterfully in his concurrence. “For those who think it important for the nation to impose more tariffs,” he wrote, “I understand that today’s decision will be disappointing. All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason.”
The legislative process can be slow and frustrating, Gorsuch explained, but through that process, the nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions. And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day.
In a series of interim decisions, the Trump administration recently enjoyed a temporary winning streak at the Supreme Court, but the judicial tide seems to be turning. Combined with its recent decision in Trump v. Illinois, which refused to stay a lower-court ruling blocking Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Illinois, the Supreme Court has defied two of the administration’s most dangerous, most authoritarian ambitions.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the court’s decision is how it may help restore faith in how courts make decisions. The crisis in American democracy isn’t simply a product of the Trump administration’s overreach, it’s also a product of deep public cynicism about government institutions. Trump owes at least some of his appeal to that cynicism. If all that matters is power, then why not pick the man who exercises that power to its fullest?
As a result, millions of Americans wonder, do principles matter at all? Or is all of politics merely a matter of gaining and wielding power, supporting your friends and crushing your enemies?
Principles still matter
The tariff decision is a reminder that principles do still matter, that at least one branch of government is not in thrall to the president, and that we can rely on reason and precedent to decide cases rather than simply counting Republican and Democratic appointees.
It is important that Roberts anchored his majority opinion in three cases that struck down the policies of Democratic presidents — Biden v. Nebraska, West Virginia v. EPA (involving environmental regulations), and National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA (COVID vaccine mandate). That sent a clear signal that presidents of both parties are held to the same standard.
There’s also a third, less obvious way in which the court’s decision helps preserve the Republic — by limiting opportunities for corruption.
By assuming vast powers of taxation, Trump made himself the focal point for an enormous amount of lobbying and trading favors. In January, for example, Politico reported that the 20 largest lobbying firms raked in nearly $824 million in revenue in the first year of Trump’s second term, a sharp increase from $595 million in Biden’s last year.
The administration has sent a message, loudly and clearly — almost anything is for sale, at the right price. And as ProPublica reported last April, politically connected people and companies were already benefiting from what appears to be targeted relief from Trump’s tariffs.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board called the administration’s opaque process for granting exemptions “the Beltway Swamp’s dream.”
The case is a victory for the Constitution and the rule of law, but there are still causes for concern. Trump is furious. He said he was “ashamed of certain members of the court” and said they were “very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.”
Those are dangerous words from a dangerous man.
The judiciary isn’t perfect, but it is performing its core constitutional function. It is preserving the foundation of America’s constitutional structure. But not even the Supreme Court can save Americans from themselves.
If we keep electing men like Trump, they will keep undermining that foundation, until it finally collapses.
David French is a columnist at The New York Times.
