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

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?”

Yeah it is, and I agree that there is no point in discussing something that you do not have an accurate grasp of with your belief that amendments are the only way to change the constitution. That was the process the Founding Fathers has created, but it has been changed by all 3 branches of government, and accepted by the people after the Supreme Court provided ruled that these, what I call extra-constitutional methods of changing the constitution, be deemed as being constitutional.

I even agree with you, but unfortunately that is the reality as to where the Constitution actually stands.

But the process of getting amendments passed & ratified are often time consuming, and as the speed of things began to move at, that were inconceivable back when the Founders created the Constitution, created a situation where changes needed to be made in a quicker fashion, which is why the Supreme Court ruled to allow them, I'm guessing. But now that the people have not risen up in objection, is it really constitutional? The courts believe it is. Can it still be challenged? I have no clue.

But I do know that the legislation has been approved by the courts, and therefore the laws that existed just short of 5 years, when it comes to the presidential authority to levy taxes is decided by the 1977 Act that provides the president the power to levy tariffs in declared emergencies which he did and that is why the court cases issuing stays or demands, are not constitutional, regardless of your ignorance on the topic, and is also why the WSJ is full of chit also. It's also why your pointing to Article 1 is insufficient.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.