Kavanaugh in dissent: Bad policy or not, Trump's tariffs were 'clearly lawful'

"Interpreting IEEPA to exclude tariffs 'creates nonsensical textual and practical anomalies,' Kavanaugh wrote. As with quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a 'traditional and common tool to regulate importation,' he said. 'It does not make much sense to think that IEEPA allows the President in a declared national emergency to, for example, shut off all or most imports from China, but not to impose even a $1 tariff on imports from China,'"

"'The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy,' Kavanaugh wrote. 'But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful.' The three justices also noted that the majority6-3decision is silent on how to return billions of dollars in tariffs that have already been collected. That process 'is likely to be a 'mess,' as was acknowledged at oral arguments, Kavanaugh wrote in a lengthy dissent that Thomas and Alito joined."

The Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, invalidated the bulk of President Trump's tariff measures. Three conservative justices dissented, asserting that a 1970-era statute empowers the president to 'regulate' importation during national emergencies and therefore to impose tariffs. The dissent emphasized historical presidential use of tariffs and argued that excluding tariffs from the statute produces textual and practical anomalies, noting that tariffs operate like quotas and embargoes as traditional import-regulation tools. The dissenters also pointed out the majority's silence on returning billions already collected in tariffs and warned that refund procedures are likely to be disorderly.

Read at Business Insider