Supreme Court Ruling on Trump’s Tariffs and the ‘Major Questions Doctrine’
On the surface, the Supreme Court’s recent decision striking down Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs appeared to be a straightforward case concerning the president’s authority to shape global economic policy and impose what the majority deemed a $134 billion tax on American consumers. However, beneath this headline-grabbing outcome, a significant debate unfolded among the court’s conservative justices regarding a complex – and often criticized – legal principle known as the “major questions doctrine.” This debate carries potentially enormous implications, not only for the remainder of Trump’s term, but for future presidencies as well.
The ‘Major Questions Doctrine’ Under Scrutiny
Justice Neil Gorsuch, in an opinion significantly longer than Chief Justice John Roberts’ ruling on the case itself, challenged his colleagues – both liberal and conservative – on their understanding of the doctrine. The “major questions doctrine” stipulates that Congress must “speak clearly” when delegating power to the president to address matters of substantial economic or political significance. Essentially, the Supreme Court may determine that presidents cannot derive significant power from ambiguous legislation.
Roberts Rejects Trump’s Tariffs
Chief Justice Roberts effectively ended Trump’s winning streak at the Supreme Court with this decision. He countered arguments from Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas, who suggested Congress intended to grant presidents flexibility through broad legislative language. Roberts asserted that in cases involving major issues, the court should be particularly skeptical of expansive claims of presidential power. “There is,” Roberts wrote, “no major questions exception to the major questions doctrine.”
A Divided Court
The spirited exchange highlights why resolving the tariffs case took months and exposed deep divisions within the court. Conservatives had previously appeared united in applying the doctrine to invalidate policies enacted by Democratic President Joe Biden – including his student loan forgiveness program, environmental regulations, and responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. However, they were sharply divided when it came to Trump’s tariffs.
Three conservative justices dissented, claiming the doctrine didn’t apply. Three liberals in the majority argued it wasn’t necessary. And two conservatives dedicated dozens of pages to debating the doctrine’s very definition. Gorsuch pointed out the irony: “Past critics of the major questions doctrine do not object to its application in this case,” he wrote, referring to the liberal wing. “Still others who have joined major questions decisions in the past dissent from today’s application of the doctrine.”
The Ruling’s Impact and Future Implications
Ultimately, a coalition of conservative and liberal justices concluded that the 1977 emergency powers law Trump relied upon did not authorize his sweeping tariffs. Trump, however, indicated during a press conference that he would pursue alternative legal avenues to impose tariffs. “When Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints,” Roberts wrote. “It did neither here.”
The doctrine has faced criticism, particularly from the left, as a potentially inconsistent, judge-made theory. The internal disagreements revealed in Friday’s decision are unlikely to quell this skepticism. As Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center, noted, “The internal division among the Republican appointees over just how powerful a tool it is…is likely to matter even more for presidents after Trump than for the rest of this administration.”
Past Applications of the Doctrine
In 2023, the court invoked the doctrine to block Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, finding that the language of the relevant law – allowing the Education Department to “waive or modify” rules – was insufficient to authorize the cancellation of $430 billion in debt. Similarly, in 2022, the court ruled that a 1944 public health law did not empower the Biden administration to enforce a nationwide eviction moratorium during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Internal Disagreements Among Conservatives
Gorsuch advocated for a robust interpretation of the doctrine, criticizing Justice Amy Coney Barrett for what he saw as a weakening of its application. He accused the dissenting conservatives of creating exceptions that would be “hard to reconcile with the Constitution.” He also noted the apparent hypocrisy of the liberal justices, who had previously criticized the doctrine but whose reasoning in the tariffs case seemed remarkably similar.
Barrett defended her approach, arguing that Gorsuch was attacking a “straw man” and suggesting his interpretation might overstep the bounds of judicial interpretation. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the liberal wing, dismissed Gorsuch’s suggestion of hypocrisy with a pointed footnote: “Given how strong his apparent desire for converts, I almost regret to inform him that I am not one.”
The Doctrine’s Evolution
The debate is particularly noteworthy because the modern conservative legal movement championed the “major questions doctrine.” However, as Stephanie Barclay, a Georgetown law professor who clerked for Gorsuch, observed, the justices are engaged in “doing the hard work of theorizing” the doctrine, a sign of its “maturing and deepening.” Ultimately, she argued, the doctrine was central to Roberts’ majority opinion, demonstrating that it’s “not about who occupies the White House; it is about whether the person who occupies the White House can claim powers that Congress never clearly granted.”
The case also saw arguments mirroring those made in defense of Biden’s policies. Kavanaugh, who drew praise from Trump, argued that the trade law Trump used was intended to provide “flexibility” to the president in addressing national emergencies. This echoed arguments made by former Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar defending Biden’s eviction moratorium.
Ultimately, the most reliable way for Congress to grant power to a president, regardless of party affiliation, is to enact clear and unambiguous legislation. As Gorsuch wrote, “If history is any guide…the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today’s result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.”
