The Trump Tariffs’ Last Stand

Support for this show comes from strawberry.me. Be honest. Are you happy with your job? Or are you stuck in one you've outgrown? Or never wanted in the first place? Sure, you can probably list the reasons for staying, but are they actually just excuses for not leaving? Let a career coach from strawberry.me help you get unstuck. Discover the benefits of having a dedicated career coach in your corner. Go to strawberry.me to claim a special offer.

Hey, everyone. Ellie here wishing you a happy Friday. Happy Halloween Friday, actually. Gosh, what a great break that is when Halloween falls on a Friday for the kids, for the parents. You can maybe... Put a little bourbon in your cups when you're walking around the neighborhood with the kids. Just a little. It's fun. Good time for everyone. It'll be, I'm sure, a fun weekend. So are there...

Legal and political costumes, like topical new ones that are out there. If you have one or if you dress your kid up as, name your person, Preet Bharara or whoever, Pam Bondi, not that they're equal. Let us know. Send it into lettersatcafe.com, and I promise I'll go through some of the best legal, political, topical costumes, Halloween costumes next week. I love that stuff. Maybe dress is like a concept, like...

Can you dress as a $230 million claim or lawsuit against DOJ, which we talked about last week? Can you dress as the 22nd Amendment? There's ways. Be creative. Love to see it.

Similarly, you know, I was thinking this week, it's not a novel thought really, but in this glut of Trump news, one of the things we all have to do is sort of separate what's real from what's not. And Trump is masterful at putting distractions out there. A big one this week was, will he run again for a third term? And look, we have to cover it. We have to address it. We have to explain it. I went on CNN and explained why it wouldn't work.

And I had other political folks around me saying, you know, it's probably just fluff and talk, but you still have to pay attention. That said, Trump is basically backed off of that now. It's not going to happen. He's not going to run. He's not going to try to run. He said so.

There's a million reasons why we don't need to get too far into it. But let's also not let that distract from the real stuff. And this week's topic, I think, is very tangible and very real and will impact not just law and policy, but our economy. So you have to do both. I mean, you can't, you know, some stuff is just so silly, you can utterly ignore it. But things like openly flirting with, running for a third time or becoming president a third time has to be addressed.

Let's not also lose sight of the real stuff, the tangible stuff. So that leads us into this week's piece. As always, I appreciate hearing from all you. I appreciate you listening. Send us your thoughts, questions, comments to lettersatcafe.com.

When the Supreme Court hears arguments next week on President Donald Trump's tariffs, prepare for crossed wires. Liberals who typically oppose Trump's economic policies will espouse traditionally conservative legal principles. Conservatives who prioritize doctrine over Trumpism will agree with those liberals forming an unlikely alliance.

And those who reflexively support anything Trump does for the pure Trump of it all will twist themselves into pretzels to justify the president's unbounded executive power grab. In the end, the court is likely, though not certain, to strike down Trump's tariff plan as presently constituted.

The legal battle began in the Court of International Trade, a federal court that handles disputes over international commerce. In May, a panel of three judges appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan... yes, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Trump himself, yes, Donald Trump himself, unanimously found invalid the tariffs implemented on the president's first day in office against Mexico, Canada, and China.

and the worldwide tariffs announced on the Trump-branded Liberation Day, April 2nd, 2025. Immediately after the loss, Trump lashed out against the Federalist Society, which has recommended many of his judicial nominees, and its founder, Leonard Leo, a quote, sleazebag and a quote, bad person. In August, a federal court of appeals reached the same conclusion, finding the tariffs unconstitutional by a 7-4 vote.

Unlike other federal appeals courts, which typically use three-judge panel, the International Trade Court issues rulings from its entire roster of active judges. The seven judges in the majority were appointed by Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Obama, three of the judges, and Joe Biden, two of the judges. The four dissenters included two George W. Bush nominees and two Obama nominees.

Trump has not appointed any judges to this particular court. Notwithstanding the cross ideological composition of both sides of the outcome, Trump blasted the, quote, highly partisan appeals court that ruled against him. The crucial point.

Moving forward, is that the Court of Appeals ruling turned largely on a legal concept known as the major questions doctrine. In short, the court explained. If Congress intends to delegate authority to the president to make decisions of, quote, vast economic and political significance, major questions, then it must provide, quote, clear congressional authorization through a statute.

As the appeals court noted, Congress unquestionably holds the tariff power in the first place under Article 1 of the Constitution, and it can choose to give some of that power to the executive branch by passing a law. However... There's nothing in the law cited by Trump, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, the IEPA, which allows the president to regulate foreign commerce to protect against any, quote, unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to a national emergency.

There's nothing in that law to plainly indicate that Congress meant to give the president the authority to enact the sweeping worldwide tariffs he announced earlier this year. In fact, that law says nothing about tariffs at all. The practical problem for Trump, as the case heads to the Supreme Court, is that the major questions doctrine is a recent favorite of the conservative justices.

In 2023, for example, all six of the court's conservatives used the very same principle to strike down Joe Biden's student debt relief program. If Congress meant to empower the president to hand out billions of dollars to borrowers, the court's right-leaning justices concluded, it would and could have said so clearly in a law. In the absence of any such explicit authorization, the court found...

Biden's plan was unconstitutional. In fact, the court's modern conservatives created the major question doctrine in a 2022 case that struck down clean air regulations issued by the EPA. to the consternation of the three dissenting liberals. Justice Elena Kagan accused the majority of, quote, magically creating the concept to engineer a preferred policy outcome. Against that backdrop.

Let's count heads in anticipation of the Supreme Court's ruling on the tariff case. We can safely predict where Justices Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown-Jackson will wind up against... Trump. They can get there several ways, the major questions doctrine being the most direct route. And one of the safest bets in the law right now is that the liberals will oppose Trump's major policy initiatives.

one way or another. So that leaves us with the six conservative justices. If two of them join the liberals, Trump loses. Don't count on Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito crossing over. Sure, they loved the major questions doctrine when it yielded conservative policy outcomes. but they'll likely adopt some convoluted explanation why it doesn't apply now, magically, perhaps to use Justice Kagan's characterization.

But in my view, at least two and maybe more of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett are likely to stand on substance and apply the same major questions doctrine they have recently created. embraced. It takes too much tap dancing to get around it in the tariffs case. Nor do I suspect these justices are especially enamored with Trump's use of an emergency statute in a plainly non-emergent situation.

or perhaps with his tariff policy writ large. Despite the common assertion that the court's conservatives predictably do whatever Trump wants, The reality is that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh have at times rejected his positions on key initiatives. In fact, the president reportedly has fumed behind the scenes at his own three appointed justices, which would be Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh.

especially Amy Coney Barrett. And Roberts as chief has made it his mission to avoid politically divisive six to three outcomes in major cases. He has often failed, of course, but he's plainly aware of the perception issue.

Even if Trump loses the tariffs case, it's already clear what he'll do next. On the legal front, administration officials have vowed that they'll try again using a different law to enact the tariffs. Trump's political opponents may find this approach exasperating. But there's nothing improper about it. For example, after the Supreme Court struck down Biden's first attempt to forgive student debt, he tried again.

under a different law, again, unsuccessfully. Keep in mind that the Supreme Court does not rule on policies. Are tariffs legal? Or can the president forgive student loans? Rather, the justices determine whether the use of a particular law to enact a given policy passes constitutional muster. A policy might work under one law, but not another. And a Trump loss in the Supreme Court might turn out to be a political win.

He and the country could be spared the potentially calamitous economic effects of the tariffs, about which conservatives and experts alike have warned. And for the rest of time, whenever any economic indicator blips, a lukewarm jobs report, an infinitesimal inflation bump. Trump will simply blame the justices. If only those activist hacks would have let me have my big, beautiful tariffs, everyone would have been rich and none of this would have happened.

The court's conservatives created the major questions doctrine three years ago, and they've deployed it since then to gut major Democratic presidential initiatives. Now what's gone around is coming around. And there's little the court's conservative middle can do to dodge it now. Thanks for listening, everyone. Stay safe and stay informed.

We all have moments where we could have done better, like cutting your own hair. Yikes. Or forgetting sunscreen, so now you look like a tomato. Ouch. Could have done better. Learn more at schwab.com.