To begin with, the Supreme Court should have never taken the case based on the fact that the people bringing this case were not parties to the issue and were without merit.
This is obviously an issue between the separation of powers between the Legislative branch and the Executive branch. The legislature would have a legitimate claim to bring such a case. Yet they did not. They delegated that authority to the Executive by doing nothing. Small business and private enterprise had no legitimacy in bringing such a case to the courts.
For decades, the legislature has conceded the tariff question to the Executive knowing that is about foreign policy and trade, something they are not equipped to handle, much like they are not equipped to handle issues of war. The legislature is a deliberative body and as such, moves very slowly and only after extensive debate. You could never get 534 lawmakers to agree on anything unanimously. It would be a rare case.
Therefore, Roberts, as he is prone to do, stepped into it with both feet. It's a shame that he doesn't take the lead from more intelligent thinkers like Thomas.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas joined two of his colleagues in dissenting from an unfortunate opinion.
Thomas insisted that the high court's majority got it wrong.
The legendary conservative justice argued that while Congress may not delegate its "core legislative power," it may delegate (and many times has delegated) enumerated powers such as the tariff-making power.
"Because the Constitution assigns Congress many powers that do not implicate the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may delegate the exercise of many powers to the President. Congress has done so repeatedly since the founding, with this Court’s blessing," Thomas wrote. "The power to impose duties on imports can be delegated."
In 2025, Trump invoked IEEPA as a statutory justification for his sweeping tariffs.
Crucially, IEEPA's Sec. 203 authorized the president to "investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest; by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
Kavanagh:
"The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy," Kavanaugh wrote. "But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful."
Thomas:
"neither the statutory text" of IEEPA "nor the Constitution provide a basis for ruling against the President."
"This Court has consistently upheld Congress's delegation of power over foreign commerce, including the power to impose duties on imports," Thomas wrote. "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.'"
“Because the Constitution assigns Congress many powers that do not implicate the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may delegate the exercise of many powers to the President. Congress has done so repeatedly since the founding, with this Court’s blessing,” Thomas wrote. “The power to impose duties on imports can be delegated.”
This is obviously an issue between the separation of powers between the Legislative branch and the Executive branch. The legislature would have a legitimate claim to bring such a case. Yet they did not. They delegated that authority to the Executive by doing nothing. Small business and private enterprise had no legitimacy in bringing such a case to the courts.
For decades, the legislature has conceded the tariff question to the Executive knowing that is about foreign policy and trade, something they are not equipped to handle, much like they are not equipped to handle issues of war. The legislature is a deliberative body and as such, moves very slowly and only after extensive debate. You could never get 534 lawmakers to agree on anything unanimously. It would be a rare case.
Therefore, Roberts, as he is prone to do, stepped into it with both feet. It's a shame that he doesn't take the lead from more intelligent thinkers like Thomas.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas joined two of his colleagues in dissenting from an unfortunate opinion.
Thomas insisted that the high court's majority got it wrong.
The legendary conservative justice argued that while Congress may not delegate its "core legislative power," it may delegate (and many times has delegated) enumerated powers such as the tariff-making power.
"Because the Constitution assigns Congress many powers that do not implicate the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may delegate the exercise of many powers to the President. Congress has done so repeatedly since the founding, with this Court’s blessing," Thomas wrote. "The power to impose duties on imports can be delegated."
In 2025, Trump invoked IEEPA as a statutory justification for his sweeping tariffs.
Crucially, IEEPA's Sec. 203 authorized the president to "investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest; by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
Kavanagh:
"The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy," Kavanaugh wrote. "But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful."
Thomas:
"neither the statutory text" of IEEPA "nor the Constitution provide a basis for ruling against the President."
"This Court has consistently upheld Congress's delegation of power over foreign commerce, including the power to impose duties on imports," Thomas wrote. "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.'"
“Because the Constitution assigns Congress many powers that do not implicate the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may delegate the exercise of many powers to the President. Congress has done so repeatedly since the founding, with this Court’s blessing,” Thomas wrote. “The power to impose duties on imports can be delegated.”
