Barrett questions Trump’s broad tariff authority in Supreme Court case

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked questions on Wednesday about the law cited by Donald Trump to impose global tariffs, joining several other justices from both the right and the left in expressing doubts about the president’s ability to use a tool he considered crucial to implementing his economic agenda.

Attorney General John Sawyer repeatedly argued during the two-and-a-half-hour long oral arguments that the emergency rule that Trump used to enact tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner contains language about regulating imports, which Sawyer said includes the use of tariffs. The relevant law allows the president to “regulate…abolition.” [and] void… import,” but she does not use the word “tariff.” Barrett pressed Sawyer on this point.

“Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where this phrase was used together, ‘import regulation,’ to give the authority to impose tariffs?” asked Barrett, a Trump appointee.

The Supreme Court is preparing to take on a huge case involving Trump’s executive power and tariff authority

Sawyer pointed to another trade law that served as a precursor to the emergency law in question, but Barrett seemed unconvinced, repeating her question because Sawyer failed to provide direct answers.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, intervened and asked Sawyer to “answer only the question of justice.”

Sotomayor noted at one point that no president had ever used emergency law, known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to impose tariffs, although Sawyer said President Richard Nixon’s tariffs were used that way even if the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not exist at that point.

“It is the power of congress, not the presidential power to impose taxes,” Sotomayor said. “And you want to say that tariffs are not taxes. But that is exactly what they are. They generate money and revenue from American citizens.”

The liberal justice noted that Congress had always used the words “regulation and taxation” together, suggesting that the absence of any mention of tariffs or taxation in the language of the law was intentional and that Congress had not intentionally granted that power to the president.

“Are you telling us that, with regard to the use of the term ‘regulation’ in other laws, the tax reference is unnecessary? They did not need to do that?” Sotomayor asked.

Trump asks Supreme Court to issue urgent ruling on tariff powers because ‘stakes couldn’t be higher’

US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared on “The View” on May 21, 2024. (Jahi Chikwendeo/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Barrett and Sotomayor also delved into other acts in the law, underscoring the absence of tariff powers.

“For me, things like ‘invalidation’ and ‘falsehood’ have specific meanings. I agree with you that ‘regulation’ is a broader term, but I think those are powerful words,” Barrett said.

Sotomayor was more blunt: “The verbs that accompany the word ‘regulate’ have nothing to do with raising revenue in the form of taxes.”

The case has become one of the most closely watched and presented a new question to the Supreme Court that Trump described this week as “life or death.”

“Our stock market is constantly hitting record highs, and our country has never been more respected than it is now,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “A big part of this is the economic security that the tariffs have created, and the agreements we have negotiated because of them.”

Sawyer told the justices that Trump views the trade deficit and opioid epidemic as “killing the country and unsustainable” and that he chose to address them by using the IEEPA to impose tariffs. Sawyer highlighted the success of Trump’s trade agreements with major foreign competitors, such as China, due to the president’s tariff choices.

“Cancel those agreements, [Trump] “A warning would expose us to harsh trade retaliation from more aggressive countries and push America from strength to failure, with devastating consequences for the economy and national security,” Sawyer said.

Sawyer said the emergency law gives the president the power to regulate imports and that “the power to impose customs duties is a basic application of that,” even if the law does not explicitly provide for it.

Several lower courts have struck down Trump’s IEEPA-based definitions. (Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In addition to the liberal justices and Barrett, other Republican-appointed justices have expressed doubts, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who has questioned the extent of presidential emergency powers under the law.

“The exercise of power is to impose tariffs, and the law does not use the word tariffs,” Roberts said.