Supreme court Hears Arguments on Trump-Era Tariffs, Debate turns to “Pastries” and Presidential Power
Washington D.C. – The Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in Trump v.V.O.S. Selections, Inc., a case challenging the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump governance on goods imported from China. The two-hour, 40-minute session saw intense scrutiny of the president’s authority to levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, with justices questioning whether the law allows the executive branch to bypass Congress’s constitutional power to regulate commerce and tax.
The case was brought by two sets of plaintiffs: small businesses impacted by the tariffs, and a coalition of twelve states. Attorneys Neal Katyal and Shah, representing the small businesses, reportedly had a “coin flip” to determine speaking order.They faced U.S. solicitor General D. John Sauer, defending the Trump administration’s actions, and Oregon Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman, arguing on behalf of the states. Several plaintiffs were present in the courtroom, including Rick Woldenberg, CEO of Learning Resources and hand2mind, and Victor O. Schwartz of V.O.S. Selections, the wine importer at the center of the case.
Sauer opened his defence by invoking the rhetoric used by former President Trump, stating the tariffs were a response to trade imbalances and the fentanyl crisis, issues Trump described as “contry-killing and not sustainable.” He argued the tariffs were necessary to bolster national and economic security.
Katyal countered with ancient arguments, emphasizing the unique constitutional treatment of tariffs. “Tariffs are constitutionally special because our Founders feared revenue-raising, unlike embargoes,” he stated, referencing the Boston Tea Party as a historical example. he further questioned the administration’s reliance on IEEPA, suggesting it could allow a president to circumvent established tariff laws. “Why would any president look to all of the different tariff statutes in Title 19 if you can just IEEPA them all, French Revolution them all?”
The arguments frequently delved into historical precedent, with references to King George III, and Presidents George Washington, James Polk, William McKinley, Abraham Lincoln, Richard Nixon, and more recent administrations. Justice Neil Gorsuch even brought up the issue of piracy, noting that Americans at the time of the Revolution believed even Parliament lacked the authority to impose taxes like those levied on them.
A key point of contention revolved around the scope of presidential power. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, appeared sympathetic to the government’s argument, raising the idea of a “donut hole” – the notion that the president could impose trade restrictions like quotas but not a small tariff, such as 1%.
Gutman responded to this argument, stating, “it’s not a donut hole; it’s a different kind of pastry,” leaving the court – and observers – without a specific analogy.
The Court’s decision, which could come before the end of the term, is expected to have significant implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches regarding trade policy. Many anticipate a ruling sooner rather than later.
