President Donald Trump and his legal team may have made a major “strategic blunder” in defending the president’s “reciprocal tariffs” scheme at the Supreme Court this week, according to Adam Liptak in an analysis published Friday by The New York Times. This misstep could have significant implications for the outcome of the case.
Trump imposed the tariffs several months ago, bypassing the need for congressional approval and causing considerable disruption in the markets. He cited his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), even though the law does not specifically mention “tariffs.”
Liptak highlighted a key issue: For months, President Trump has publicly touted how much revenue the tariffs would generate for the government. However, before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, his lawyer presented a different justification. D. John Sauer, the solicitor general, stated that “the tariffs were tools to achieve policy goals,” adding, “The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental.”
This distinction is legally significant. According to Liptak, if the Supreme Court determines that the tariffs are essentially a form of tax, they are likely to rule against them, since the Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to levy taxes. On the other hand, if the justices view the tariffs as diplomatic tools, they may be upheld as part of the president’s foreign policy prerogative.
In general, Liptak noted, the justices do not typically give much weight to political statements made in public. However, this case stands out for a crucial reason: the government’s main legal brief quoted and adopted some of President Trump’s public remarks. As Liptak explained, “the disconnect at Wednesday’s argument was more complicated than in earlier cases because, in an unusual move, the introduction to the government’s main brief quoted and so adopted some of Mr. Trump’s public statements.”
This means the administration’s legal arguments not only contradict the president’s own words, but they also contradict themselves—potentially undermining the legal foundation for Trump’s tariffs at the highest court in the nation.
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-supreme-court-2674276843/