Outside Mayor Steps In as Barrett Questions Trump’s Customs Powers
Justice Amy Coney Barrett engaged Attorney General John Sauer regarding President Donald Trump’s authority to impose tariffs, referencing existing precedents. Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor urged him to directly address Barrett’s inquiries during a recent Supreme Court oral argument.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to resolve a significant challenge to Trump’s utilization of emergency legislation for imposing high tariffs, leaving a sense of uncertainty that resonates through both the White House and global markets.
The court issued three relatively low-profile rulings: Burke v. Choi, Ellingberg v. United States, and Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited Co. v. Burton, all decided unanimously, though with some separate concurring opinions offered.
Supreme Court Takes on Major Case Against Trump and Customs Officials
In Burke v. Choi, the justices examined whether a Delaware law mandating medical malpractice plaintiffs to submit an “affidavit of merits” would apply in federal court. They unanimously concluded otherwise, asserting that federal rules govern in this context, thus invalidating the state’s requirement.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred with this decision.
The second case, Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton, revolved around whether a company could contest a judgment of invalidity several years post-issue, or if it was too late. The court unanimously ruled that any motion claiming a judgment is invalid must occur within a “reasonable time,” according to federal standards.
Justice Sotomayor also filed a concurring opinion here.
Trump’s Tariff Authority Faces Scrutiny in Supreme Court
In Ellingberg v. United States, the justices deliberated over whether court-ordered monetary restitution under federal law qualifies as a criminal penalty concerning the Constitution’s ex post facto clause. They unanimously agreed that it does so, meaning reparations are constrained by constitutional limitations on retroactive criminal penalties.
Anticipation around the Supreme Court’s future tariff decision has been mounting since Trump hinted at imposing 10% tariffs on eight European nations via his platform Truth Social unless they reached a deal regarding what he called a “complete and total purchase of Greenland.”
Trump has defended his tariffs as essential use of emergency powers. However, critics argue these measures go too far, exceeding the president’s authority and circumventing Congress.
As of now, the court has not yet communicated when it will release its next opinion.
