Supreme courts' ruling on tariffs--6/3
But the story doesn't end with the majority's gavel. A powerful counterargument roared from the minority. Justice Kavanaugh didn't just disagree; he demolished the majority's reasoning with precision. In his view, the tariffs align perfectly with statutory text, history, and precedent.He argued that Trump acted within his authority under the 1977 law to regulate importation, a power historically tied to tools like quotas, embargoes, and, yes, tariffs.
Statutory text, history, and precedent demonstrate that the answer is clearly yes: Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation.
Kavanaugh went further, suggesting this ruling won't be the final word. He noted that presidents could still impose similar tariffs under other laws, such as the Trade Act of 1974. His dissent framed the issue as a matter for voters and lawmakers, not judges, to wrestle with.
The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy, but as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful, it was said.
Closing his argument, Kavanaugh stood firm with a respectful but pointed conclusion: "I respectfully dissent." His words echo a broader conservative frustration with judicial overreach into policy domains.
Read more about it...
