Outside Mayor Steps In as Barrett Pressures Trump’s Customs Officials

Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned Attorney General John Sauer about the legal grounds on which President Donald Trump has imposed tariffs, referencing prior legal rulings. Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor urged Sauer to directly address Barrett’s inquiries during the Supreme Court’s oral discussions.

On Wednesday, Barrett probed into the laws Trump has used, suggesting concern regarding the administration’s interpretations. During a two-and-a-half-hour session, Sauer contended that the emergency law Trump cited includes terms that would allow for tariff imposition. This law permits the president to “regulate…nullify” imports, but notably lacks the word “tariff.” Barrett challenged Sauer on this issue.

“Can you point to any historical references where ‘regulate imports’ has been used to justify tariffs?” Barrett, appointed by Trump, asked skeptically.

During the hearing, Sauer referred to a previous trade law but Barrett pressed him when his answer didn’t seem conclusive.

Sotomayor intervened, emphasizing the need for clearer answers. She pointed out that no president has previously used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to levy tariffs. Sauer argued that Nixon had done something similar, although the IEEPA did not exist back then.

“The power to tax belongs to Congress, not the president,” Sotomayor remarked. “And you want to argue that tariffs aren’t taxes, yet they clearly generate revenue from the public.”

The liberal justices highlighted that Congress has always linked “regulate” and “tax,” suggesting that the omission of tax-related terms in the law implies Congress did not intend to grant that power to the president.

Sotomayor questioned the necessity of taxation references in relation to “regulation” in other statutes, pushing for clarity.

Both Justices addressed the absence of customs authority in the law’s language. Barrett noted that “nullification” has specific implications, while Sotomayor bluntly stated that “regulate” does not pertain to revenue generation.

This case stands out as significant, especially with Trump presenting what he calls a pressing issue to the Supreme Court. He noted on social media that the economy is thriving, in part due to tariffs and successful negotiations.

Sauer mentioned that Trump views the trade deficit and the opioid crisis as gravely harmful to the nation, opting to use IEEPA for imposing tariffs as a remedy. He highlighted that these tariffs have resulted in fruitful trade agreements with key countries like China.

If the trade agreements were to be dissolved, Sauer warned that the U.S. could face severe repercussions, potentially transitioning from a global leader to a position of vulnerability, impacting both economic and national security.

Sauer asserted that the emergency law empowers the president to regulate imports, claiming that imposing tariffs lies at the heart of this authority.

In addition to Barrett and Sotomayor, other justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, raised doubts about how far the president’s emergency powers extend according to the law.

“The law permits the imposition of tariffs, yet it does not explicitly use the term,” Roberts pointed out.