Tariffs aren't a presidential power, says California Attorney General

President Donald Trump's trade agenda is on the line Wednesday. That's when the Supreme Court hears arguments about his broad use of tariffs. The power to impose tariffs is a core application of the power to regulate foreign commerce. That's John Sauer, Solicitor General, arguing on behalf of the government. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back against Sauer's argument on tariffs not being a tax. I just don't understand this argument. It's not an article.

It's a congressional power, not a presidential power to tax. And you want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that's exactly what they are. Trump has been talking about the power of tariffs for some four decades, but this battle began back in April. Standing in the Rose Garden, President Trump proclaimed Liberation Day. April 2nd, 2025 will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn. Carrying out his campaign pledge to impose massive tariffs on foreign imports.

In a few moments, I will sign a historic executive order instituting reciprocal tariffs on countries throughout the world. Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEPA, when he imposed the sweeping tariffs, the goal, he said, was to rebuild American manufacturing. We're going to build our future with American hand, with American heart. This will be indeed the golden age of America.

And as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday, the case goes beyond tariffs. Prominent lawyers and scholars, many of them conservative, argue this case is about presidential power. This fits into a wider picture than over. Over the last several decades, presidents of both political parties have been increasingly asserting unilateral power that had never been exercised by presidents in the past and that under the Constitution.

belong to Congress. That's Michael McConnell. He represents one of the plaintiffs. He's also a constitutional law professor at Stanford University and a former federal judge nominated by President George W. Bush. stake if the court sides with president trump tariff policy on a dime there can be no confidence by the international system

that the United States is going to stick with a policy or comply with trade negotiations the way we have in the past. Consider this. The Supreme Court will decide whether the president has the power to impose tariffs. Should the justices rule in Trump's favor, the effects will extend well beyond America's balance sheet. From NPR, I'm Juana Summers.

This message comes from Carvana. The Carvana Value Tracker shows you your car's worth. Check it anytime, track changes, and sell when the timing feels right. Use Carvana Value Tracker to track your car's value today. On the ThruLine podcast from NPR, the story of the undersea cables that run the internet. Other historians have compared it to the Apollo missions of going to the moon.

Listen to ThruLine in the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, it's Ray from Car Talk. You tired of all the depth? and thoughtful care that goes into NPR shows? Want some good old-fashioned goofing around and stumbling to figure out what's going on? Well, I've been taking occasional car questions again. You can hear them by signing up for NPR+. along with lots of other bonus content. Just go to plus.npr.org. It's Consider This from NPR.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta was at the Supreme Court Wednesday watching the arguments play out. Bonta filed a friend of the court brief in this case, and it's one of dozens in which the state of California has opposed Trump administration policy. I spoke to General Bonta shortly after the arguments wrapped. So I just want to start with this. Obviously, we'll turn to tariffs in just a moment.

It was a big day for your party, a big day for Democrats up and down the ballot. Yesterday, Democrats achieved two governorships in New Jersey and Virginia. There was a big vote in your state supporting redistricting. What message do you take away from what we saw from voters last evening?

A couple. One, that the status quo is not working for voters. It was very much a referendum on Trump. He wasn't on the ballot, but he was essentially on the ballot. Folks were pushing back against his policies, and it turns out that... People like the rule of law. They like democracy. They like the Constitution. They want hungry people to be fed. They want Americans to have affordable health care. They don't want our cities to be militarized. And they don't want tariffs that raise costs.

And they don't want ICE as mass agents all over our cities either. So that was, I think, declared loud and clear by the voters that came out. Let's turn now to those tariffs and to the Supreme Court in your role as Attorney General of the state of California. You filed a friend of the court brief in this case.

As I understand, at the core of your argument, one that is supported by California's governor, Gavin Newsom, is that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEPA, it does not cover the use of tariffs. Am I understanding that correctly? 100% correct. Tariffs are taxes. Congress has the power to tax. It's in Article I of the United States Constitution, the statute upon which the president relies to impose...

tariffs of 10% to 145% across nearly all of our trading partners. It doesn't mention the word tariffs once. And in other statutes where the federal government wants to give authority to the president, they mention the word tariffs. They delegate that authority clearly. Also, AIPA has never been used in nearly 50 years of its existence to impose.

a tariff by any prior president. So he doesn't have the authority. We think it's very clear. And the U.S. Supreme Court argument today, I think, surfaced those key issues very clearly. There have, though, been other rulings under a previous statute that said that tariffs are indeed within the president's power to regulate trade. How would you respond to that? When a statute gives the power to impose tariffs by the president, they say it.

and they use the word tariff or other clear language, there's no such clear expression of delegation of tariff authority to the president in AIPA. So AIPA has never been used. for tariff, imposing tariffs by any president. And that's the statute. But I think, though, about the precursor to IEPA, which was the Trading with the Enemy Act, which was enacted then during World War I.

And that has been brought up in this case. It has been brought up. And that was not a U.S. Supreme Court case. AIPA was a statute that was... passed by Congress after the Trading with the Enemy Act, and it was meant to create constraints and restrictions. And every other statute that confers tariff-making authority on the president says it. AIPA did not.

The prior case on the Trading with the Enemy Act does not get the government where they hope to go here with the broad-ranging unlimited authority to impose tariffs against any country for any amount of time.

This tariff case is one of a number in which you're fighting the Trump administration. If I'm correct, there were 46 lawsuits to be exact. Some of these aimed at accessing federal funds that have been withheld by the Trump administration. There was another suit over the use of the National Guard in the state of California. California, some observers might take a look at the number of lawsuits out there and say that you are using the courts as a way.

to thwart policies that you simply do not agree with politically. What would you say to that? I think it's interesting that they would draw that conclusion as opposed to saying, wow, the president is really violating the law a lot.

because that's what's happening, and that's all that we look at. It's not partisan. It's a legal question. Is he breaking the law? Do the facts justify our case? Is he hurting our states? And so we only have one position. If he breaks the law, we sue him. If he doesn't break the law, we don't. I think the proof is in the pudding. We've brought...

46 cases in 41 weeks, more than one a week. We're winning over 80% of the time, securing temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, permanent final injunctions and judgments in cases. So that means he's breaking the law and that we're right. And we only... You know, look at these cases from a sterile, dispassionate perspective. Is he breaking the law? If the answer is yes, we sue him. And the court's decisions have shown that we're right and that he's breaking the law.

All of these suits, they're really all about the use and limits of presidential power. And the Trump administration is really continuing a trend that we've seen politically for decades of the executive branch claiming these broad powers. Explain to me why this case is different. This is part of the sort of fringe theory of a unitary executive, that the executive branch has expansive power that is not conferred upon it by the U.S. Constitution.

clearly has three co-equal branches of government. The president has been acting as if he's a king, a monarch, a tyrant, and the Constitution rejects that fact. And so this tariffs case is an example of the president overreaching, again, trying to seize authority that is. is not his, trying to take from Congress their authority, trying to trespass on Congress's constitutionally given authority. And so it requires the court to interpret the law and render an order that says

Get back in your lane, Mr. President. You do not have the authority here. You're exercising authority that does not belong to you, belongs to Congress, and you cannot impose tariffs. This is a court that we've seen in the past, though, the makeup of this particular court that has seemed inclined to preserve a rather muscular identity.

of the executive power, a muscular understanding of what that looks like. Do you expect this case to be any different? I do, based on what I heard in the courtroom today. There's definitely some on the court, not all, but some who believe in a more muscular executive branch, but they also...

read the Constitution, are going to interpret the Constitution as it should be interpreted, and they can clearly read, like anyone else can, that the Constitution says that Congress has the power to tax, and that tariffs are taxes, and that unless clearly delegated to the president, the president cannot. exercise that congressional authority. And they had a lot of discussion today about the plain and ambiguous text, the legislative history, the historical.

precedent and context. And I think a lot of signs for hope that there's no indication that the president has the authority that he thinks he has. Before I let you go, I do just want to bring this back to the stakes for American households, for American consumers. If the Supreme Court does indeed uphold President Trump's use of emergency powers to impose these tariffs, what does that mean for everyday people including in your state? Devastating.

And it's already been devastating to workers, to families, to small businesses, to moms and pops just trying to survive. Costs have gone up. California is projected to have an economic hit of $25 billion, lose 64,000 jobs. California is the biggest state in the nation, fourth largest economy in the world. We are the largest importer of any state, the second largest exporter, the largest agriculture exporter, the largest manufacturer.

And so these tariffs have an outsized impact on California. And it's about everyday people who deserve better than to have a president who is breaking the law, making their cost of living higher and hurting them. And businesses don't have predictability or certainty. been a war on Christmas.

Shelves will be empty and or the cost will be much higher. And Americans deserve better than a lawless president making their costs higher in a time when they need their costs and they deserve their costs to be lowered. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, thank you so much for being here. Thanks for having me, Juana. This episode was produced by Brianna Scott and Erica Ryan with engineering by David Greenberg. It was edited by Courtney Dorning. Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigan.

It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Juana Summers. I'm Rachel Martin. If you're tired of small talk, check out the Wild Card Podcast. I invite influential thinkers to open up about the big topics we all think about but rarely talk about. Tune in this fall to hear Mel Robbins, Malala Yousafzai, and Brene Brown talk about everything from grief and God. to ambition and forgiveness. Watch or listen on the NPR app, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Hi, it's Terry Gross, host of Fresh Air. Hey, take a break from the 24-hour news cycle with us and listen to long-form interviews with your favorite authors, actors, filmmakers, comedians, and musicians, the people making the art that nourishes us. and speaks to our times. So listen to the Fresh Air podcast from NPR and WHYY. Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon Prime members can listen to consider this sponsor-free through Amazon Music.

Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get Consider This Plus at plus.npr.org. That's plus.npr.org.