Though the US supreme court has during its shadow docket reliably sided with president, at least on a provisional basis, over the past several months, for the justices’ first properly vetted and argued case regarding the legality of Trump’s imposition of tariffs through a 1977 emergency powers act—not mentioning trade or embargo—is marked with scepticism and seemingly signals in the midst of the longest shutdown of the federal government and the Democrats winning several special elections a referenda on the hallmarks of Trump’s economic and foreign policy agendas, not to mention his style magisterial style of governance that has dulled the enumerated powers of the judiciary and legislature.
Although much of the opening argument was given over to definitions, semantics and pragmatics and whether the major questions doctrine of the court, a statutory interpretation of the law that issues of major political or fiscal importance holding that congressional powers cannot be delegated to the executive—cited when clawing back the initiatives of student loan forgiveness under Joe Biden over the hundred billion dollar discharge though its applicability and precedent questioned over potentially trillions, the case does not address more fundamental questions whether tariffs are themselves an effective foreign policy tool privileged as they are over the regular channels of diplomacy and negotiation for attracting international investment and reshoring given the turmoil and chaos that such vacillations are inspiring, an productive instrument of national security for stemming drug-trafficking or even a constructive way of generating revenue for the treasury given that they are effectively a tax on US consumers—again the defence for the US government deflecting the scope of the case by saying that the monies made are “only incidental,” not convincing the panel of judges. Deliberations could take a month—rather swift by the court’s standards as the administration has demanded that this case be expedited.