Where do we go to get our refunds from Trump's illegal national sales tax?
This is a big decision. It goes far beyond merely
interpreting the 1997 International Emergency Economic Powers Act not to give
Trump the power over tariffs that he claims to have. It reaffirms a basic
constitutional principle about the division and separation of powers between
Congress and the president.
On its face, this decision clarifies that Trump cannot
decide on his own not to spend money Congress has authorized and appropriated —
such as the funds for U.S.A.I.D. he refused to spend. And he cannot on his own
decide to go to war.
“The Court has long expressed ‘reluctan[ce] to read into
ambiguous statutory test’ extraordinary delegations of Congress’s powers,”
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for himself and five other justices in the
opinion released yesterday in Learning
Resources vs. Trump.
He continued: “In several cases involving ‘major questions,’
the Court has reasoned that ‘both separation of powers principles and a
practical understanding of legislative intent’ suggest Congress would not have
delegated ‘highly consequential power’ through ambiguous language.”
Exactly. Trump has no authority on his own to impose tariffs
because the Constitution gives that authority to Congress.
But by the same Supreme Court logic, Trump has no authority
to impound money Congress has appropriated because the Constitution has given
Congress the “core congressional power of the purse,” as the Court stated
yesterday.
Hence, the $410 to $425 billion in funding that
Trump has blocked or delayed violates the Impoundment Control Act, which
requires Congressional approval for spending pauses. This includes funding
withheld for foreign aid, FEMA, Head Start, Harvard and Columbia universities,
and public health.
Nor, by this same Supreme Court logic, does Trump have
authority to go to war because Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the
Constitution grants Congress the power to "declare War … and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water" — and Congress would not have
delegated this highly consequential power to a president through ambiguous
language.
Presumably this is why Congress enacted the War Powers Act
of 1973, which requires a president to notify Congress within 48 hours of
deploying troops and requires their withdrawal within 60 to 90 days unless
Congress declares war or authorizes an extension. Iran, anyone?
The press has reported on the Supreme Court decision
as if it were only about tariffs. Wrong. It’s far bigger and even more
important.
Note that the decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts — the same justice who wrote the Court’s 2024 decision in Trump v. United States, another 6 to 3 decision in which the Court ruled that former presidents have absolute immunity for actions taken within their core constitutional powers and at least presumptive immunity for all other official acts.
I think Roberts intentionally wrote yesterday’s decision
in Learning Resources v. Trump as a bookend to Trump
v. United States.
Both are intended to clarify the powers of the president and
of Congress. A president has immunity for actions taken within his core
constitutional powers. But a president has no authority to take core powers
that the Constitution gives to Congress.
In these two decisions, the Chief Justice and five of his
colleagues on the Court have laid out a roadmap for what they see as the
boundary separating the power of the president from the powers of Congress, and
what they will decide about future cases along that boundary.
Trump will pay no heed, of course. He accepts no limits to
his power and has shown no respect for the Constitution, Congress, the Supreme
Court, or the rule of law.
But the rest of us should now have a fairly good idea about
what to expect from the Supreme Court in the months ahead.
