Hailey Whitlock, Editor

On Feb. 20 the Supreme Court issued a ruling deeming President Trump’s sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act unconstitutional. Per CNN, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 6-3 majority opinion,“The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authority to exercise it.” The court felt that the emergency law President Trump supported his claim to set these tariffs fell short of this standard, writing, “When Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful restraints. It did neither here.” 

The Supreme Court emphasized that while the focus of the court is not in areas of tariffs or foreign trade, it is in ensuring that the actions taken are in line with the aims of the Constitution. Keeping this goal in mind, Robert penned in the majority opinion, “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 the IEEPA (the International Emergency Economic Powers Act) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.” 

However, not all of the justices agreed with this majority opinion. Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion noting per Business Insider, “Neither the statutory text of IEEPA nor the Constitution provide a basis for ruling against the President. This Court has consistently upheld Congress’ delegation of power over foreign commerce including the power to impose duties on imports. The Court has long conveyed to Congress that it may ‘invest the president with large discretion in matters arising out of the execution of statutes relating to trade and commerce with other nations.” Brett Kavanaugh bluntly stated to Business Insider, “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.”

As to President Trump’s response to the ruling, he proclaimed at a news conference following the ruling per CNN, “The Supreme Court’s rulings on tariffs are deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.” He reiterated these thoughts during his State of the Union speech, calling the ruling “disappointing” and “unfortunate.”  

Nevertheless, this ruling brings to mind a rather pressing, and complex, issue: how should the government refund the funds collected from the tariffs – and should they even try. The issue comes with the fact that the tariffs were deemed unconstitutional, meaning the Supreme Court acknowledged that these funds were raised improperly. The tariffs will stop in the future, unless of course they get put in again through a different law, likely getting sent back to the Supreme Court, but this does not handle the matter of the nearly $133 billion raised through the repealed tariffs. 

In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court largely ignored the issue of retroactive payment. Per NPR Cavanaugh criticized this oversight, elucidating, “The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.” 

This matter is not only complicated due to the negative financial consequences of pulling back $133 billion, much of which has already been spent, but also by the ethical concerns of repayment. Often when tariffs are charged the costs are passed on to consumers so while technically the importer pays the tariff fees, the consumers truly pay it through higher prices. As such, most repayment plans would be focused on issuing funds to importers, not the consumers who shouldered much of this burden. As such, the issue of repayment is a rather messy business with the potential to impact the economy tremendously. For the moment, it seems likely that the more micro decisions regarding the repayment plan will be sent to the lower courts and hashed out through litigation.