"That dynamic-lower-court intervention followed by more deferential Supreme Court review-will soon face its most important test. Just before Labor Day weekend, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump) invalidating most of Trump's claimed authority to impose tariffs unilaterally. Trump has already appealed the decision, and the matter will be resolved by the Supreme Court sometime soon."
"If the Court says that Trump has overstepped, it will be the first substantive instance of the justices intervening to restrain him. But if the Court defers to Trump's declaration of an emergency, it will be an enormously consequential decision, signaling the Court's complete abdication of review authority. To say that the future of the constitutional system of checks and balances hinges on what the Court does is no exaggeration."
"In the tariffs case, Trump's underlying claim is that he has the power to impose them unilaterally because of a supposed national economic emergency. Trump has run this play before, using false declarations of emergency conditions to justify his claims of extraordinary emergency powers. Under this guise, Trump has asserted authority to combat an immigration "invasion" and to take over policing in the District of Columbia."
Lower federal courts have been willing to curb President Trump's claims of authority, while the Supreme Court has shown greater openness to deferring to him. The Federal Circuit recently invalidated most of Trump's claimed unilateral tariff authority in V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, and Trump has appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court's decision will determine both the specific authority to impose tariffs and the broader constitutional scope of presidential emergency powers. A ruling against Trump would mark a substantive judicial restraint; a contrary ruling would signal judicial abdication and empower expansive emergency claims.
Read at The Atlantic
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]