This morning, we kick off the first of two collaborative pieces with Law & Liberty in light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump. The initial contribution, penned by John O. McGinnis, delves into the legal intricacies of the decision. Here’s a glimpse from the article:
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump is poised to trigger immediate political ramifications, significant economic consequences, and more nuanced, long-term effects on the legal landscape. Although the doctrinal importance of the case may appear limited—given the fractured opinions on nearly every issue beyond a singular focus on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—six justices did come together on one key takeaway: the president does not possess the authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA. Yet, even this consensus saw the justices split into two distinct camps: one contingent invoked the major questions doctrine, arguing that such an extraordinary claim of power necessitated clearer Congressional intent, while the other asserted that the president’s lack of authority was evident without needing any explicit statement from Congress.
Nonetheless, the case carries substantial weight regarding the separation of powers. The majority justices share an underlying belief that tariffs operate as taxes, firmly placing them within Congress’s control over fiscal matters. An assertion of emergency does not transfer this authority to the executive branch. In this way, Learning Resources reinforces the primacy of Congress in fiscal decision-making.
For an in-depth read, check out the full article here, and stay tuned for tomorrow’s exploration of the economic implications from David Hebert.
