During former President Joe Biden’s term, the United States Supreme Court used a conservative legal principle known as the “important questions” doctrine to derail and limit much of his agenda. Now, with the issue of tariffs, the question arises: Will Republican President Donald Trump’s widespread tariffs suffer the same fate?
That is a key question as the court decides on the legality of the tariffs, fundamental to Trump’s economic policy and his relationship with the rest of the world. On Wednesday, the court heard arguments in the case, and the significant issues doctrine was a focus during the justices’ questioning of lawyers representing the Trump administration and parties challenging the tariffs as an abuse of presidential power.
The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its magistrates of that tendency have adopted this doctrine in recent years, which requires that the actions of the executive branch of “enormous economic and political significance” be clearly authorized by Congress.
Biden’s policies
The court invoked the doctrine to thwart Biden’s plan to cancel $430 billion in student debt, block his COVID-19 vaccination or testing mandate for large businesses, reverse his policy of protecting struggling renters during the pandemic and revoke the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate carbon pollution from power plants.
In the case of tariffs, it remains to be seen how the court will rule and whether the important issues doctrine will guide its decision. However, most of the justices expressed at least some concern about the legality of Trump’s imposition of tariffs, relying on a 1977 law intended for national emergencies.
Congress passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to expand the president’s powers during a national emergency. Although the law authorizes the president to regulate imports, it does not include the word “tariff.” Before Trump, no president had used the IEEPA to impose tariffs.
U.S. Attorney General John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, faced resistance when he suggested during arguments that the significant issues doctrine should not apply to Trump’s tariffs, citing presidential authority over foreign affairs.
“I mean, it seems like it could be directly applicable,” conservative Chief Justice John Roberts told Sauer, referring to the doctrine.
“The justification is being used to grant the power to impose tariffs on any product, from any country, in any quantity and for any period of time,” Roberts added. “I’m not saying there isn’t such a power, but it appears to be a significant authority, and the basis for that claim seems inappropriate.”
Will the US Supreme Court limit Trump’s agenda as it did with Biden?
According to Corey Brettschneider, a Brown University professor specializing in constitutional law, the court risks appearing deeply partisan if it refuses to examine Trump’s tariffs under this doctrine.
“They used it to limit Biden, why wouldn’t they use it here?” Brettschneider asked. “That would be an embarrassment to the court.”
Among the six conservative justices, Roberts seemed the most clearly inclined to rule against Trump’s tariffs based on the important issues doctrine. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, along with the court’s three liberal members, also appeared to doubt the legal validity of the tariffs.
You may be interested: The Treasury defends Trump’s tariffs in the face of skepticism from the Court
Albany Law School professor Raymond Brescia said the ambiguity over the scope of the IEEPA should prompt the court to apply the material issues doctrine — as it did in the Biden student loan case — and strike down Trump’s tariffs.
“The fact that it is difficult to predict whether the court will even adhere to its own previous rulings says a lot about what many judicial observers think about betting against the Trump administration before this court,” Brescia said.
This year, the Supreme Court has issued emergency rulings in several cases that allow various Trump policies to take effect, even after lower courts raised questions about their legality.
Biden’s executive actions ‘lacked congressional authorization’: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s conservative justices formalized the major issues doctrine during Biden’s four years as president, determining that some of his key executive actions lacked clear congressional authorization.
These precedents were cited by those who challenged Trump’s tariffs. Companies affected by the levies and twelve US states, most governed by Democrats, filed lawsuits to block their trade policy. The Trump administration appealed after a federal appeals court and a federal judge declared the tariffs illegal.
The Washington-based US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that there was no “clear congressional authorization” under the IEEPA to justify tariffs of that magnitude.
“The government’s interpretation of the IEEPA as granting the president the power to impose unlimited tariffs… contravenes the major issues doctrine,” the court wrote.
Some Trump critics believe the justices should apply the same reasoning when deciding the current case.
“It seems to me that if they’re going to raise a ‘big issue’ about student loans, they should do it all the more when talking about trillions of dollars in taxes being paid around the world,” said Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who attended the arguments.
Although the Supreme Court typically takes several months to issue rulings after hearing arguments, the administration has asked that it act quickly in this case. It is not yet clear when the final decision will be made.
Columbia University constitutional law professor Gillian Metzger said she hopes the plaintiffs succeed.
“If the court invalidates the tariffs, I expect the majority will do so on the basis that the levies are not authorized by the statute, invoking the important issues doctrine as an additional basis for that decision, but not as the only one,” Metzger said.
With information from Reuters
Continue reading: US government shutdown causes airline crisis as travel chaos looms
Follow information about the world in our international section
