This past week, the United States Supreme Court issued a 6-3 opinion in the Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump tariff case. The decision gave way to much praise or panning—with positions and opinions generally driven by political affiliation or support/opposition for POTUS. My admonition is to look at it without reference to our political affiliation or desire to support or oppose the President; instead, we should evaluate this decision based upon the U.S. Constitution and what the statute at-issue actually says.
As a conservative, I have long advocated for originalism in interpreting the U.S. Constitution, and a strict construction of statutes so that we avoid judges who simply try to interpret statutes to achieve their own desired goal. The Constitution is clear: Article I vests the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises in Congress. I also strongly believe that separation of powers is critical to preserving the balance of powers, and that a strong Article I branch (the Legislative Branch) is critical to the preservation of our Republic. Often, I hear that Congress has ceded too much authority to the Executive Branch—and I agree.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the President has the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The holding of the Supreme Court was straight forward: “IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” IEEPA was created by Congress in 1977 to rein in Presidential authority (not to expand it), giving the President certain enumerated powers in this area, including the power to "regulate...importation" in specific emergencies. But, the Supreme Court rightfully ruled that the power to “regulate” does not include the power to “tax” through the imposition of tariffs. The Court pointed out that the term “regulate” has never included the power to tax in any other statute. The case also reaffirms the principles of the longstanding “Major Questions Doctrine,” which states that when Congress intends to hand over major authority to the President—especially something as significant as the power to tax—it must say so clearly.
As the Court noted: “When Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints. It did neither in IEEPA.” Editorially, consider if the Court had ruled the other direction—Presidential power over tariffs would be effectively without limit and the Constitutional authority given to Congress would be eviscerated. This decision helps to reinforce the Constitutional role of Congress in taxation and tariff decisions. And, this decision protects the Article I branch of government and the American people in the long-term when the President may not have the same political party affiliation.
President Trump is right to confront unfair trade practices globally, and I support his mission to establish trade agreements that advance American interests. There are lots of other tools in the President’s toolbox on tariffs that he can use to accomplish this end. As a Member of the Ways and Means Committee, I look forward to working with my colleagues and the President to advance legislation that structures trade agreements that support the American people, demand accountability from bad actors like China, promote free and fair trade, and are rooted in conservative principles.
