During a Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was involved in a mix-up while questioning U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer about President Donald Trump’s authority to independently impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The law allows presidents to regulate international trade during emergencies. The case examines if President Trump exceeded his IEEPA authority by applying tariffs on nations allegedly exploiting U.S. economic interests.
“I’m referring to President Nixon’s 1971 tariffs,” Sauer explained. “Oh, the president. I’m sorry. Excuse me. Yes. I thought you meant Lincoln,” acknowledged Justice Jackson, correcting her earlier confusion.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had previously ruled 7–4 against President Trump's authority to issue such tariffs. However, the Supreme Court decided to expedite the review of this case due to its significant implications for presidential power.
Justice Jackson sought historical instances of presidents using emergency powers to enact tariffs from Sauer. He referenced President Richard Nixon's 1971 tariffs under the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), a forerunner to IEEPA. Nixon's tariffs, a 10 percent surcharge on imports, were designed to correct global currency imbalances.
Confusion arose when Justice Jackson remarked, “That wasn’t a tariff. It was a licensing agreement during wartime. It was a specific thing. A tariff, I’m talking about.” Sauer clarified his reference to Nixon's 1971 action, leading to Justice Jackson’s realization of her error, “Oh, the president. I’m sorry. Excuse me. Yes. I thought you meant Lincoln.”
The mix-up quickly became a topic of online discussion, with legal analyst Jonathan Turley labeling the hearing as "interesting" and highlighting the constitutional implications, especially concerning Congress's authority to regulate commerce and levy taxes.
Critics argue that the Court's involvement in emergency powers could set a precedent affecting the balance between the legislative and executive branches. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to impose tariffs and regulate foreign commerce. Concerns about presidential overreach and the preservation of the Founders' designed balance of powers are at the forefront of the debate.
Conservative commentators suggest that Justice Jackson's confusion highlights issues related to judicial overreach and the potential consequences of judicial errors on economic stability and national trade policy. Historical examples, such as James Madison's support for tariffs to protect American interests and Nixon's emergency tariffs, inform the current debate.
Regardless of the Court's decision, President Trump has the constitutional right to challenge rulings that he believes encroach on executive authority. Legislative action could offer clarity on tariff powers and safeguard future presidential measures against legal disputes.
Justice Jackson's momentary lapse has underscored the importance of judicial expertise, historical understanding, and the influence of the Supreme Court on executive actions, emphasizing the larger implications for U.S. economic policy and national trade strategy.
