Editorial: Justices consider administration's tariff push

Las Vegas Review-Journal, Las Vegas Review-Journal on Nov 8, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

The most telling moment during Wednesday’s arguments before the Supreme Court on President Donald Trump’s tariffs came when Justice Neil Gorsuch walked the attorney representing the administration into a corner.

Under the theory of executive branch power advanced by the White House, couldn’t the president “impose a 50 percent tariff on gas-powered vehicles and auto parts to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad of climate change?” Justice Gorsuch asked. Solicitor General John Sauer acknowledged this was the case.

In other words, Sauer argued that a president has the unilateral authority to levy a tax without the consent of Congress. But the Constitution says otherwise, giving the legislative branch the power to raise revenue. To declare otherwise is to undermine the separation of powers, a vital check on tyranny, and to ignore the high court’s recent rulings properly demanding that executive branch agencies have explicit authority from Congress before imposing regulations with significant economic impact.

In this case, the White House argues that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 allows a president to implement tariffs during an emergency. Whether the nation faces an emergency from a trade imbalance is a matter of debate. But the law doesn’t mention the word “tariff.” That wouldn’t seem to provide clear language delegating congressional authority to the executive.

“It seems to me that might be directly applicable” in this case, Chief Justice John Roberts said, referring to high court decisions preventing bureaucrats from using ambiguous legislative language to enact far-reaching regulations.

The White House’s approach on trade has paid off in some regard, leading certain countries to promise additional U.S. investment and prompting others to renegotiate trade deals. In addition, the levies to this point have not led to the inflation or destructive trade wars many feared. The president does have the authority to conduct foreign affairs, but tariffs also represent a domestic economic tool often used to placate various special interests.

Nor would a ruling against the administration mean an end to the tariffs. Trump has other trade-related laws covering unfair trade practices or national security that he may use to impose higher duties, but they entail a more time-consuming process. Either way, don’t expect the White House to abandon the tariff strategy.

But the issue isn’t whether Trump’s penchant for tariffs is wise or misguided. It’s whether the law in question empowers the executive branch to act without limitation when it comes to raising taxes via tariffs. The separation of powers concept that girds the Constitution and high court decisions reining in the overactive administrative state indicate otherwise.