Will SCOTUS Say No to Trump’s Tariffs?

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court appears skeptical of presidential tariff authority in arguments for Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, potentially influenced by recent election results.
Representative LaMonica McIver faces charges for allegedly assaulting federal agents during an ICE detention center oversight visit, raising questions of congressional immunity.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a rare 48-hour administrative stay in a SNAP benefits case, compelling rapid Supreme Court action.
The Court's shadow docket allowed the State Department to continue issuing passports based on sex assigned at birth, with Justice Jackson dissenting.

The Supreme Court issued a shadow docket order allowing the State Department to continue issuing passports with sex assigned at birth.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the order.
The hosts expressed frustration that the court prioritized the idea of the president being 'irreparably harmed' by not being able to misgender transgender individuals.

Oral arguments in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, concerning presidential tariffs, were described as 'surprisingly not terrible' for the administration.
The hosts suggested recent Democratic electoral victories likely influenced skepticism from some Republican justices, notably Chief Justice Roberts.
Drawing parallels to the post-Dobbs 2022 midterms, electoral backlash may prompt judicial restraint, encouraging the court to appear independent.
One host estimated a greater than 50% chance the court would invalidate the tariffs, citing potential support from Democratic appointees and Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The oral arguments in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump explored the application of the 'major questions doctrine' to presidential tariffs.
Justices debated whether tariffs constitute taxes and if the doctrine, used to strike down past Biden administration policies, applies to executive power to raise revenue.
Justice Sotomayor questioned if invoking foreign affairs could bypass the major questions doctrine, potentially allowing broad regulations on issues like climate change.
Solicitor General John Sauer asserted climate change is a 'hoax' in response to Justice Gorsuch's query about using tariffs for international climate issues, surprising the hosts.

Solicitor General John Sauer presented conflicting arguments, debating whether tariffs are taxes or regulatory tools.
Sauer attempted to frame tariffs as beneficial rather than costly, contradicting presidential statements.
In rebuttal, Sauer argued tariffs are regulatory, not revenue-raising, to avoid tax implications, a position that conflicted with President Trump's own statements about tariffs generating revenue.

The Court discussed the legal interpretation of 'regulate importations' within the Import-Export Clause regarding presidential tariff authority.
Justice Kagan highlighted that the relevant statute, IEPA, lacks specific tariff power, and the Trump administration's argument would bypass numerous existing tariff statutes.
Justice Kavanaugh emphasized legislative history, arguing Congress enacted IEPA to ratify President Nixon's theory of presidential power to tariff.
Leah Litman criticized Justice Thomas for actively assisting the argument against tariffs during oral arguments.

Representative LaMonica McIver of New Jersey discussed charges against her for allegedly assaulting federal officers during an oversight visit to an ICE detention center.
McIver asserted her actions were within her legislative authority to oversee DHS activities and ensure dignified treatment for detainees.
She faces motions to dismiss based on 'vindictive and selective prosecution' and constitutional immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause.
McIver emphasized the need for Democratic leaders to continue oversight duties despite fear of retribution, viewing her case as an effort to silence elected officials.

The Trump administration refused to pay SNAP benefits to over 40 million people despite lower court rulings and initial compliance indications.
Plaintiffs sought enforcement after the administration changed course, leading to a district court order to pay November SNAP benefits by a Friday deadline.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied an administrative stay but had not ruled on the stay request itself.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a two-page order granting an administrative stay, delaying action and requiring the First Circuit to resolve the stay pending appeal with dispatch.

Justice Jackson's administrative stay includes a 48-hour deadline for the First Circuit to rule on the stay pending appeal after its decision.
This limited duration is significant as it forces prompt Supreme Court action, unlike typical administrative stays which can last indefinitely.
The 48-hour deadline encourages accountability, contrasting with cases like Orr and Wilcox, where emergency relief decisions took 48 days and five weeks, respectively.
Legal expert Steve Vladeck explained the stay pushes the case back to the First Circuit, anticipating a ruling by Tuesday or Wednesday.