Posted the second of two articles cross-posted with Law & Liberty in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources v. Trump. Today, David Hebert explains why the economic impact of tariffs cannot be reversed by court rulings. From the article:
Just over a year ago, President Trump began unilaterally changing tariff rates with countries around the world, citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The goal was to restructure world trade. It was the first time a president had used IEEPA in this way, which always posed challenges.
In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled against the president. In November, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case. Last week, in a 6-3 decision in Learning Resources v. Trump, the court found that the IEEPA does not give the president the power to unilaterally impose, rescind, or adjust tariffs to suit the president. Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, argued that tariffs are essentially taxing rights and, as such, differ not only in degree but in kind from the trade tools expressly authorized by IEEPA.
While this opinion is certainly an important legal victory, it should not be confused with an economic victory. The damage from tariffs has already been done and continues to be done.
Please read the full article here.
(If you missed it, also see John O. McGinnis’ discussion of the legal implications of the ruling.)
