Kelly (00:05): A new term for the Supreme Court is on the horizon, and frankly, I find the concept a tad perplexing. What do they actually do in the intervals between these terms? And what should we anticipate in this upcoming term? Thankfully, I have the Great Bill Jacobson, professor of law at Cornell University, here to untangle these mysteries. Bill, can you explain what a Supreme Court term entails and what the justices occupy themselves with when they’re not actively deliberating?
WAJ (00:29): Certainly! Even while the Court is not officially in session, they are not completely idle. They handle emergency motions, but the term itself denotes the period when they engage in oral arguments, which runs from early October until potentially June. Essentially, ‘term’ is just a scheduling device to organize their calendar. They may take the summer off, but there’s certainly work happening behind the scenes.
Kelly (00:53): So the term is merely a label. Nicely played, Bill! Now, what major developments should we expect in this term?
WAJ (01:01): One of the most significant issues on the table involves the Trump tariffs. This case is particularly crucial from an economic standpoint, revolving around whether President Trump overstepped his authority when he instituted these emergency tariffs.
There are two main questions at play. First, did he justify declaring an emergency correctly? I suspect the Supreme Court will defer this decision to the president’s judgment. The second, and arguably more contentious issue—where the federal appeals court ruled against him—is whether tariffs can even be considered a viable remedy under the established emergency statute. The lower court concluded that, regardless of whether the emergency was appropriately invoked, tariffs are not included as options for relief. Instead, they asserted that the authority for imposing tariffs lies with Congress, leading them to determine that he exceeded his powers.
This case promises to be contentious. I’m uncertain of how it will be resolved, but Trump’s economic strategy is heavily intertwined with these tariffs, making this an exceptionally high-stakes legal battle.
Kelly (02:14): Alright Bill, so let’s break this down. With all the talk about tariffs and various international trade agreements, like the one struck with the UK, would a ruling against Trump mean the complete unraveling of these agreements?
WAJ (02:32): It’s certainly a possibility, yes. We’re talking about potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs that may need to be refunded if the Court decides he acted beyond his authority. If they rule against him, it could indeed dismantle a significant portion of his trade initiatives.
