BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Authority, and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 27.8% saturation with 131 hits. Analysis detected 705 faulty-reasoning hits from 472 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 76% and a BS Rank of 85% (3,487 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.10% of the article peer group.
The U.S. Supreme Court said President Trump's tariffs policies imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPPA) are unconstitutional, dealing a major blow to the president's signature economic policy.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 6-3 opinion.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
Writing for the court's majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said Trump lacked the peacetime authority to use IEPPA to pose tariffs.
"In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it," Robert wrote, concluding Trump has not.
Trump had argued persistent trade imbalances and the flood of fentanyl coming into the country presented national emergencies and pose a threat to national security.
During arguments before the court last year, Trump's lawyers had said the president possessed the authority to issue tariffs.
Roberts rejected that argument.
"When Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints," he wrote.
"It did neither here."
Justice Kavanaugh, who wrote the principal dissent, noted that the court's decision had opened up a can of worms.
"The United Sates may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others," he wrote.
As of last December, the government collected more than $130 billion in revenue from the tariffs.
Kavanaugh pointed out that 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."
At issue in the case was the implementation of Trump's campaign pledge to impose massive tariffs on foreign imports.
After his inauguration, Trump issued an executive order that initially imposed a tariff of at least 10% on goods from most countries doing business with the United States.
Goods from countries like China have been hit with much higher tariffs — up to 145%, though they have since come down.
Imports from allies like Canada and Mexico have been taxed at 25%; Canada's rate was later increased to 35%.
But the up-and-down, fluctuating tariffs around the world spooked American businesses, prompting a court challenge, contending that the president had exceeded his authority in imposing the tariffs.
In some two dozen previous cases, the Supreme Court has been largely receptive to Trump's claims of presidential authority, but those victories came on the Supreme Court's emergency docket, allowing Trump policies to take effect on a temporary basis while the litigation played out in the lower courts.
In contrast, the tariff cases are the real deal, with the court having ordered full briefing and expedited arguments in the case, and offering the justices the first real opportunity to say "no" to the president.
On Friday, the justices did just that.
Speakers
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.