Episode 318: SCOTUS Takes on the Tariffs

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court is deliberating on Trump's tariffs, focusing on congressional power delegation and legislative vetoes.
The "major questions doctrine" is a likely framework for the Supreme Court's ruling on the tariff case.
Dick Cheney's post-9/11 strategy shifted the U.S. counterterrorism approach from law enforcement to a national security model.
Challenges to interim U.S. Attorney appointments are scrutinizing the legality of certain past indictments.
Recent Republican election losses were attributed, in part, to public disapproval of "lawfare."

Republican election results were described as disappointing by Andy McCarthy.
McCarthy argued public dislike of 'lawfare' contributed to Republican losses in recent elections.
Specific examples from New Jersey and Virginia were cited to illustrate this sentiment.

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments regarding Trump's tariffs.
The original International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) statute included a legislative veto for Congress to nullify presidential actions.
The 1983 Supreme Court decision in *INS v. Chada* invalidated legislative vetoes, making it harder for Congress to retract delegated powers.

Justice Gorsuch questioned the constitutional infirmity of Congress delegating legislative authority to the president.
The inability of Congress to retract delegated power without presidential approval is seen as constitutionally problematic.
This practice has led to decades of legislation primarily enacted by executive order.

Oral arguments addressed whether tariffs are permissible as revenue-raising measures, similar to licensing fees.
The statutory language, including terms like "otherwise," "regulate," and "embargo," was analyzed for its application.
The concept of congressional delegation of tariff power was also examined by the Court.

The "major questions doctrine" is identified as a potential basis for ruling against Trump's tariff actions.
This doctrine suggests that large-scale measures like these tariffs require clearer statutory authorization from Congress.
The discussion drew an analogy between the tariff case and a recent presidential immunity case, both involving the scope of executive power.

One analyst predicted Trump will lose the tariff case, likely by a vote of 6-3 or 7-2.
Potential votes from Justices Barrett, Kagan, and Gorsuch, and their engagement with the "major questions doctrine," were analyzed.
Chief Justice Roberts is predicted to write the majority opinion, likely utilizing the "major questions doctrine" to secure five votes.

Dick Cheney was credited with shifting the U.S. to a war footing post-9/11.
Between 1993 and 2001, eight major terrorist attacks occurred, leading to only approximately 29 arrests.
The criminal justice system was deemed ineffective against overseas terrorism, exemplified by the lack of indictments after the 2000 USS Cole attack.

Cheney's counterterrorism strategy correctly shifted from a law enforcement to a national security model, focusing on foreign adversaries.
This strategic shift is credited with preventing further 9/11-scale attacks.
President Obama reportedly adopted much of this national security strategy despite initial rhetorical opposition.

A judge ruled Bilal Asale ineligible to serve as interim U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles due to unmet statutory requirements.
This case parallels potential challenges to other indictments, questioning the eligibility of interim U.S. Attorneys.
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi's attempt to backdate an appointment to legitimize an indictment is currently under scrutiny.