Trump Championed Rulings That Are Now Being Used to Check His Power

Wall Street Journal ^ | May 31, 2025 | Jess Bravin and Jan Wolfe

[karpov]

During the Biden administration, conservative challengers won Supreme Court victories that limited the president’s power to craft policy in matters from student-debt relief to air pollution. Now, those precedents are returning to haunt one of their greatest champions: President Trump.

On Wednesday, a specialized federal court in New York invalidated the worldwide tariffs Trump imposed to address a range of issues on his agenda, from international trade imbalances to cross-border trafficking of fentanyl.

The unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade relied in part on the “major questions” doctrine, which the Supreme Court adopted in 2022 to bar federal agencies from “asserting highly consequential power” unless Congress has clearly delegated such authority to the executive branch. The trade court also invoked Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a 2024 opinion overruling a 1984 doctrine known as Chevron deference that had required courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous laws.

Conservative legal activists worked for years to get such rulings from the Supreme Court, and the votes of three Trump appointees helped deliver them. In dissent, liberal justices warned against hamstringing Washington’s ability to respond to national problems.

In an April executive order, Trump declared the precedents as a cornerstone of his regulatory policy. The order directed agency heads to begin repealing regulations they decided were unlawful under 10 Supreme Court decisions, beginning with Loper Bright and the major questions cases.

Those same cases now threaten to curb Trump’s expansive claims of executive power and restrain some of his boldest moves.

On Thursday, a furious Trump questioned the trade court’s reasoning. “The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs,” he said on social media. “Is it purely a hatred of ‘TRUMP?’ What other reason could it be?”

[Fledermaus]

I didn’t know you were a FR cop. Could you post a list of your rules for posting since you seem to believe you have that authority.

[FreedomNotSafety]

Once again you build another weak strawman. If a dullard can see your logical errors you must be very poor at debate. Whether the earlier precedents support the latter one is not the point of this article and I have not said one way or another if I believe the former are being correctly applied against the latter. This article shows how they are being used. Do you disagree that the earlier precedents are being used against Trump? Focus on that question.

Then point out where I have voiced my opinion on if the early precedents are appropriately applied against the latter.

If you had read the entire article you will see the WSJ offers opinions supporting your point.

[AndyJackson]

I think we can dispense with this issue pretty quickly, actually and it is clear why the appellate court, en banc, stayed the Trade Court’s order. Here is what the WSJ article claims: The law Trump invoked to justify the tariffs, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, was adopted in 1977 to specify when the president could use measures such as sanctions to respond to foreign threats. While the statute might allow the targeted imposition of tariffs to address particular problems, the court found Trump was using them as a blunderbuss to cow countries around the world for myriad reasons—something far beyond the limited power Congress granted the president. Under the administration’s theory, “a President may use IEEPA to take whatever actions he chooses simply by declaring them ‘pressure’ or ‘leverage’ tactics that will elicit a third party’s response to an unconnected ‘threat,’ ” the court said. “Surely this is not what Congress meant when it clarified that IEEPA powers ‘may not be exercised for any other purpose’ than to ‘deal with’ a threat.”

The unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade relied in part on the “major questions” doctrine, which the Supreme Court adopted in 2022 to bar federal agencies from “asserting highly consequential power” unless Congress has clearly delegated such authority to the executive branch. The trade court also invoked Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a 2024 opinion overruling a 1984 doctrine known as Chevron deference that had required courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous laws.

So let us do what no one has done here so far and resort to extreme measures of reading the statute < a href=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-35> 50 U.S. Code Chapter 35 - INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC POWERS. Here is what it says:

50 U.S. Code § 1701 - Unusual and extraordinary threat; declaration of national emergency; exercise of Presidential authorities
(a) Any authority granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may be exercised to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.
(b) The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose. Any exercise of such authorities to deal with any new threat shall be based on a new declaration of national emergency which must be with respect to such threat.

50 U.S. Code § 1702 grants the President broad powers of tariffs, embargoes, regulations, prohibitions and investigations

Most importantly 50 U.S. Code § 1706 provides:
(b)Congressional termination of national emergencies by concurrent resolution The authorities described in subsection (a)(1) may not continue to be exercised under this section if the national emergency is terminated by the Congress by concurrent resolution pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C. 1622] and if the Congress specifies in such concurrent resolution that such authorities may not continue to be exercised under this section

_____________________________________________________________________

In sum,
1. This is an extraordinary power for extraordinary circumstances, not just, say, a Cod War with Canada where they are ramming our fishing boats to establish a cod monopoly selling into the US
2. One can argue that the Court of Trade lacks jurisdiction because the Congress established itself as the authority to terminate a declared emergency.
3. The argument under the major questions doctrine is nonsense. The Congress clearly granted powers to deal with extraordinary international economic emergencies to the President. And to be clear, not to any administrative agency but to the President himself.
4. Loper Bright is irrelevant as there is no ambiguity in the clear cited legislative language of the statute or in the power Congress retained for itself to halt any such emergency.
5. The Court said “Under the administration’s theory, “a President may use IEEPA to take whatever actions he chooses simply by declaring them ‘pressure’ or ‘leverage’ tactics that will elicit a third party’s response to an unconnected threat …Surely this is not what Congress meant when it clarified that IEEPA powers ‘may not be exercised for any other purpose’ than to ‘deal with’ a threat.” - so this is the Court looking for an ambiguity [fentanyl smuggling vs trade deficits and unfair tariff structures or other trade practices] where there is none. Address seven threats from China together at one time is not a violation of “a” threat in the clear meaning of the word. I don’t get off for running two stop signs when the law prohibits running a stop sign. I get two fines and probably a charge of reckless driving thrown in.
6. Also, this isn’t granting to the president a power reserved to Congress since it is limited to national security and foreign policy emergencies which are very much Presidential powers to begin with.

So this is lawfare vs the laws the rule of lawyers vs the purpose of the law, which is national security, foreign policy and economic security for the People. and not for a bunch of judges, trade lawyers, chamber of commerce and globalists. Any first year college student taking a course on Aristotle would be able to argue this. You have to ignore that and engage in the kind of special pleading of the free traitors and the hand-picked judges on this Court to argue that trading in Fentanyl and unfair tariffs was too many things for the minor kind of emergency that the President can handle and that it has to be left to Congress and the kangaroo court judges who decided in their own favor.

Of course minor foreign policy issues are handled through embassies and consular officials who decide things like the granting of visas because the President should be involved in Major foreign policy and national security issues like profiteering on selling out the US to foreign powers wholesale and bankrupting the country while impoverishing the people.

[AndyJackson]

The Court got bounced overnight by an en banc panel because their arguments are nonsense. Anyone here could have looked up the statute and see what it says. No one did. The whole point, however is that the arguments are all specious because they are all based upon the presumption that there are a lot of private goods to offset against each other and no particular public good to defend. It takes lawyers and morons like you to argue against what every Hillsdale 2nd year student knows, and no I didn’t go to Hillsdale.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

To which post of mine are you responding? The one where I asked some other guy what part of the Constitution gave the President the power to impose tariffs? If not, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Because he's the one who said the Constitution gave the President that authority. I was just asking where in his copy it did that, because mine seemed to have omitted that provision.

For...whatever point you are trying to make, is it your position that the court specifically established by Congress precisely to decide whether the President's imposition of a tariff exceeds the authority the statute gave him doesn't have the authority to make that determination?

Because that's a real mind-bender of an argument if that's your position.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Once again, you have proved yourself incapable of answering a simply, direct question posed regarding a factual claim you made.

I'll keep trying. You said that the Constitution gave the President the power to impose tariffs. Not a statute, the Constitution. You do know the difference between the Constitution and a statute, right?? So why do you keep listing for me statutes without either 1) admitting that you were wrong in claiming that the Constitution gave that power to the President, or 2) identifying the specific clause or section in the Constitution that gave that power to the President.

Why not just admit that the only power the President has to impose tariffs is whatever power Congress chooses to delegate to him? Is that really so difficult?

[FreedomNotSafety]

Bested by second year Hillsdale or freshman Aristotle, I’m not sure which is the greater attempted insult. But resorting to insults and ad hominem attacks are a sure sign you have lost the argument.

The WSJ explains how previous precedents that Trump helped set are now being used against him. You ignored my previous questions. I will ask again, are the previous Trump wins being used against him? Again, how I have argued in support of the SC decision?

What to make of this Imprimis article, I am a donor and subscriber for over 30 years.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/tariffs-in-american-history/

[AndyJackson]

It tries to say that tariffs are bad and so Trump is bad unless he is really sing tariffs as a negotiing tool and only time will tell. And then we have the court saying he can’t do that because he has too many emergencies going on at the same time and the law is unclear and it’s a major question ignoring that the law gives Congress the power to end the emergency not the court.

[AndyJackson]

You left off a word “mergency” which undoes your whole argument. No go read Ruth’s statute that I quote and referenced and get back to me.

[Robert DeLong]

Your first response was not a question at all, and I answer your question when you asked.

It's not my fault if you do not understand that Congress pretty much transferred the authority of tariffs to the president via legislation after the 16th amendment that ushered in the income tax, and that the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had wide authority to transfer that power to the president.

So, as you see the Supreme Court wad already involved on the argument, and ruled that what transpired was well within the framework of the Constitution.

Noe answer my question, since I answered yours.

[Robert DeLong]

https://time.com/7289417/trump-tariffs-blocked-small-businesses-lawsuit-victory/

I'm not, nor so I try to be. I was trying to goad him into responding. He comes in here and posts all of these articles, and then never responds. I got what I wanted, he responded.

Aren't you more interested in cute little animal stories, or am I confusing you with someone else?

[FreeReign]

The article is behind a paywall.

Since you have not read it you will have a hard time refuting it.

AND one who can't read it will also have a hard time agreeing with it.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Actually, you still haven't answered the question directly. You continue trying to duck it, so I'll state it for you. No, the Constitution does not give the President authority to impose tariffs. Constitution gives that authority to Congress.

Any authority the President has to impose tariffs comes from legislation passed by Congress. That is an extremely important distinction because if the president's authority to impose tariffs came directly from the Constitution, then no legislation passed by Congress could change that in any way.

So before going on, are we now in agreement that whatever authority the President has to impose tariffs has to come from Congress via legislation, subject to whatever scope, restrictions, and limitations Congress may have prescribed?

[FreedomNotSafety]

Do a google search using Chrome. This can get you free reads. But make sure the link isn’t directly to WSJ.

[Robert DeLong]

In the very end it is the human that is responsible and as my little essay inquires...who will we hold accountable

But how do you determine which human provided the malicious code?

[Robert DeLong]

I see I never respond to you with the correct topic that was meant for another ping I had received, but hit reply to your ping..

So, I will now tell you that I did indeed answer your question. The problem is that you see the original Constitution & its official Amendments as being all that you have to look at for the answer.

But amendments are not the only method for altering the constitution as originally penned. The legislature can also alter the constitution with legislation, and when it comes to tariffs the 1977 legislation, under Carter's presidency, gave the president the power in emergencies to levy tariffs.

In addition, the Supreme Court ruled that the legislative branch had the wide authority to transfer that power to the president in emergencies.

Trump declared the emergency using 3 nations initially. He then extended the emergency to the rest of the trading partners on whom he also slapped with reciprocal tariffs.

All of that makes up the existing constitution which is why you just referring back to Article 1 was insufficient, and why my previous post to you was providing the missing elements from your argument, and justified my argument that you do not understand the constitution.

You can no longer just look at the constitution & the amendments as it was written by the founding fathers and its numerous alteration through the amendment process. It has gotten far more complex to determine the existing constitution as it currently stands. You also have to look at changes made by the legislatures that have been signed by the president, along the ruling made by the Supreme Court on the question of the validity of the changes made by the legislative branch.

Hopefully now you understand. I do expect you to acknowledge that. Have a blessed day.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

But amendments are not the only method for altering the constitution as originally penned. The legislature can also alter the constitution with legislation,

No, it can't. And if that is your position, then further discussions are pointless.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

There is zero chance Trump would present a budget with massive cuts. He doesn’t believe in that. He just thinks we can grow our way out of this. Which we can’t.

[Hyman Roth]

Yeah. I’m a CPA. You have to cut spending. It’s the only way. My clients are always looking for ways to streamline. Period. Growth is great. But as long as revenue doesn’t surpass expenditure well you know the outcome

[Hyman Roth]

I just caught onto your screen name. Have you cut your hand off yet? 😎