Arguments analyzed This is how the Supreme Court justifies the customs ruling against Trump
The Supreme Court has overturned one of US President Donald Trump's key economic measures. In a landmark ruling, the judges explain why far-reaching tariffs based on an emergency law are not legally permissible.
No time? blue News summarizes for you
- The Supreme Court clarifies that tariffs are constitutionally part of Congress's tax and trade powers and may not be imposed unilaterally by the president.
- The judges argue that although the IEEPA can regulate economic transactions, it does not contain any explicit authorization to impose tariffs.
- The ruling is considered a fundamental decision on the separation of powers and limits the possibility of interpreting emergency economic powers expansively.
The Supreme Court has prohibited US President Donald Trump from imposing far-reaching tariffs on the basis of the IEEPA emergency law. But how exactly does the highest US court argue?
blue News shows the central lines of argument - and the most important passages in German translation.
Tariffs are a matter for Congress - not the President
Right at the beginning, the court makes it clear what is at stake constitutionally: fiscal sovereignty.
The Supreme Court literally states:
«Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides: 'The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties and Imposts.'»
And further:
«'The framers of the Constitution delegated no part of this taxing power to the executive branch.»
The court thus draws a sharp line: customs duties are part of the power to tax - and this lies with Parliament.
"Regulating" does not mean "taxing"
The government argued that the IEEPA allows the President to "regulate" imports - and this includes customs duties.
The Supreme Court clearly disagrees.
The ruling states:
«The word 'regulate' is not ordinarily understood to include taxation.»
The judges went on to write:
«'Many statutes give the executive branch the power to regulate. However, the government cannot cite a single statute in which 'regulate' includes the power to tax.»
The judges emphasize the difference between economic regulation and fiscal revenue collection. A duty is "very clearly part of the power to tax".
There needs to be a clear basis for such major interventions
A central argument is based on the so-called "major questions doctrine".
The court states:
«The President claims the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope. To do so, he must refer to a clear authorization from Congress.»
This clear authorization is not found in IEEPA.
The judges warn against deriving far-reaching powers from vague formulations:
«We have long been reluctant to recognize extraordinary delegations of congressional authority in ambiguous statutory text.»
In other words, the greater the economic consequences, the clearer the law must be.
No president has ever used the law in this way
Another argument concerns historical practice.
The Supreme Court writes:
«In half a century of its existence, no president has used IEEPA to impose tariffs - let alone tariffs of this magnitude and scope.»
The Court views this lack of historical practice as a strong indication that the legislature never intended such a delegation of power.
Even a state of emergency does not abolish the separation of powers
Trump had invoked an economic emergency. But here, too, the court draws a line.
The judges write:
«There is no exception to the 'major questions' doctrine for emergency legislation.»
And further:
«Emergency powers tend to fuel emergencies.»
The court thus makes it clear that a declared state of emergency does not automatically extend the president's constitutional powers.
The decisive sentence
In the end, the Supreme Court sums up its reasoning in one central point:
«IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.»
The President is claiming "extraordinary power" - but there is no clear legal basis for this.
