COURTS AND PRESIDENTS ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT!

 Weekly Opinion Editorial

TARIFF RULING!

by Steve Fair

 

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) delivered a major blow to President Donald Trump last week by ruling (6-3) many of the tariffs Trump has imposed based on a 1977 emergency economic powers law were unconstitutional.  To say Trump was disappointed in the ruling is an understatement.  At a hastily called news conference after the ruling, he denounced the SCOTUS justices who ruled against him as a “disgrace” and announced wide-ranging new tariffs.  Trump used a different law to impose a 10 percent across-the-board tariff.  Three observations:

First, courts don't always get it right.  Courts and judges, at all levels, are made up of people and people are fallible.  They filter all their decisions through their worldview and political philosophy.  Often judges legislate from the bench and use their power to overturn laws and twist the original intent of lawmakers.  The SCOTUS is part of balance of power in America, but it is far from perfect and many of the high court's past decisions have been wrong.

Second, presidents don't always get it right.  No one gets it right all the time, including President Trump.  He could be right about the SCOTUS getting it wrong, but that remains to be seen.  Trump is correct the executive branch has the authority to Impose tariffs.  Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allow the president to act regarding tariffs under specific, limited, and legally defined conditions.  

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said: “we claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

Third, the law is subject to interpretation.  There are two types of judicial philosophy: judicial activism, where judges are more willing to overturn laws, precedents and policies to shape social and political change.  Those who subscribe to judicial activism interpret the Constitution as a 'living' document.  That is normally the liberal view.

The second philosophy is judicial restraint.  Judges who subscribe to judicial restraint rule more often on the original meaning of the Constitution and defer to the legislative branch to make the laws.  This is normally the conservative view.  Neither philosophy is perfect, because even in its best day, human judgment is flawed. 

Trump's response to the SCOTUS ruling on the tariffs could impact future cases.  Insulting and degrading people who in the future will likely be ruling on cases you are involved in is probably not a wise strategy. 

Two of the three of the SCOTUS justices Trump appointed to the high court voted with the three liberals on the court and Chief Justice Roberts against Trump's tariff decrees.  Only Justice Brett Kavanaugh (appointed by Trump in 2018) sided with the president.    

It remains to be seem who got this ruling right, but Trump is not be the first president to be surprised by how a justice they appointed ruled.

When tariffs are put in place, they have to comply with the law.  If the law is wrong, then Congress needs to fix it.  Circumventing and dodging the law is illegal, no matter who does it. 

Court rulings are often frustrating and create roadblocks.  Routinely, the legislative and executive branches of government are at odds with the judiciary.  None of the three branches are always right. They all make mistakes.