This morning we bring you the first of two cross-posted articles with Law & Liberty in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources v. Trump. The first part, by John O. McGinnis, provides an overview of the legal aspects of the decision. From the article:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources v. Trump will have immediate political consequences, substantial economic consequences, and subtle but long-term effects on the shape of the law. Doctrinally, its significance may appear to be limited, as opinions are divided on almost everything beyond a single issue under a specific law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The six members of the court agreed only that IEEPA does not give the president the authority to impose tariffs. But despite that conclusion, the justices were divided into two camps. One relied on the principal question doctrine, holding that because of the extraordinary powers claimed, Congress must speak more clearly than it actually did; the other concluded, without relying on the clear statement rule, that the president’s lack of authority was apparent.
However, this case remains important for the separation of powers. Underlying all of the majority justices’ opinions is a common premise that tariffs function as taxes and are therefore within Congress’s financial resources. A state of emergency declaration does not transfer power to the president. In this sense, learning resources reassert the primacy of parliament.
Read the full article here. Check back tomorrow for David Hebert’s commentary from an economic perspective.
