>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Business groups and political opponents challenged the move in court. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate… importation” does not clearly authorize tariffs, arguing that taxation powers belong to Congress unless lawmakers provide unmistakable language.
The majority framed the case as one of constitutional limits. The dissenters saw it as judicial overreach.
Kavanaugh: The Majority Is Rewriting the Law
Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, issued a powerful dissent rooted in statutory text and history.
He wrote: “In light of the statutory text, longstanding historical practice, and relevant Supreme Court precedents, I would conclude that IEEPA authorizes the President to ‘regulate . . . importation’ by imposing tariffs on foreign imports during declared national emergencies”.
Kavanaugh sharply criticized the Court’s reasoning, stating: “The Court’s decision today cannot be justified as a matter of statutory interpretation”.
He also warned that the majority had expanded a controversial doctrine into dangerous new territory: “What is new and rather extraordinary is the approach embodied in THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion for three Justices, which would extend the major questions doctrine into the foreign affairs realm for the first time”.
Beyond legal theory, Kavanaugh highlighted the real-world consequences. He cautioned: “The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs… the refund process is likely to be a ‘mess’”.
He added that undoing these tariffs could destabilize international negotiations: “Because IEEPA tariffs have helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars—including with foreign nations from China to the United Kingdom to Japan… the Court’s decision could generate uncertainty regarding various trade agreements.”
Thomas: Importing Is a Privilege, Not a Right
Justice Thomas went even further in a separate dissent, challenging the majority’s reliance on separation-of-powers arguments.
He emphasized that trade and importing have never been considered fundamental private rights. As Thomas wrote: “Importing is a matter of privilege” and “A person had no core private right to import goods at the founding”.
Thomas rejected the notion that Congress improperly delegated power to the President. He stated: “the nondelegation doctrine does not apply to ‘a delegation of power to make rules governing private conduct in the area of foreign trade,’ including rules imposing duties on imports”.
Addressing the Court’s constitutional concerns directly, Thomas wrote: “Therefore, to the extent that the Court relies on ‘“separation of powers principles”’ to rule against the President… it is mistaken”.
He reinforced his historical argument with another blunt assessment: “Early Congresses often delegated to the President power to regulate foreign commerce, including through duties on imports”.
Thomas continued: “NEITHER the statutory text nor the Constitution provide a basis for ruling against the President.”
He underscored Congress’s intent: “Congress authorized the President to “regulate . . . importation.” Throughout American history, the authority to “regulate importation” has been understood to include the authority to impose duties on imports.”
He pointed to precedent involving President Nixon: “The meaning of that phrase was beyond doubt by the time that Congress enacted this statute, shortly after President Nixon’s highly publicized duties on imports were UPHELD based on identical language.”
Thomas concluded: “The statute that the President relied on therefore authorized him to impose the duties on imports at issue in these cases.”
And he left no ambiguity about Congress’s authority to delegate power: “Because the Constitution assigns Congress many powers that do not implicate the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may delegate the exercise of many powers to the President.”
Finally, he reminded the Court of history: “Congress has done so repeatedly since the founding, WITH THIS COURT’S BLESSING.”
A Clash Over Presidential Power
Justice Alito did not write separately but joined Kavanaugh’s dissent in full, signaling strong agreement that the Court had stepped beyond its proper role.
At its core, this case is not just about tariffs. It is about who controls America’s response to foreign economic aggression and national emergencies.
The dissenting justices argue that Congress clearly gave the President tools to act decisively during crises. The majority, in their view, just removed one of those tools.
Whether this decision reshapes executive authority for years to come remains to be seen. What is certain is that three justices believe the Court has inserted itself into foreign affairs in a way that could weaken the President’s ability to protect the country when it matters most.
THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE TERM LIMITS!!! NO EXCEPTIONS!!!