The Supreme Court is wrong about Tariffs

The entire basis of Robert’s opinion is that the word “regulate” does not include levying tariffs because only Congress has the power to levy taxes. This is an extremely flimsy argument for two reasons.

First and foremost, Congress has a long history of delegating tariff power to the President. You can go all the way back to the First Congress during the Washington Administration, when they gave him power to fine individuals for violating his trade restrictions with Indians. Or in 1794 when they gave him the power to embargo all ships in US ports. I can go on and on with examples - Justice Thomas details them in his dissenting opinion. So for Roberts and the majority to suggest that “regulate” can’t possibly include tariffs because of separation of powers, completely ignores historical context.

Along the same lines, the IEEPA gives the President the power to “regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit”… “importation or exportation”. Roberts sees the flaw in his argument and tries to get in front of it by saying, “even though a tariff is, in some sense, less extreme than an outright compulsion or prohibition, it does not follow that tariffs lie on the spectrum between those poles.” Impressive mental gymnastics. So the President can straight up block international trade, but he can’t impose a tariff? This is the logic that so many of you are defending.

You can criticize the IEEPA for transferring too much power to the President, but it’s the law. This idea that only Congress can levy tariffs because the Constitution says so, ignores the common practice of delegating certain legislative powers to the Executive branch. The Founders understood this and established the precedence when it comes to international commerce.