Chief Justice John Roberts doesn\u2019t waste words.<\/p>\n
His majority opinion<\/a> in last week\u2019s tariff ruling was, characteristically, a model of succinctness. In a mere 21 pages (Justice Neil Gorsuch\u2019s concurring opinion, by contrast, clocked in at 46 pages, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh\u2019s dissent at 63), he explained why, as a matter of statutory interpretation and the constitutional separation of powers, President Trump lacked the authority he had claimed, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to impose a hodgepodge of tariffs on countries all over the world.<\/p>\n There was, however, one exception to the opinion\u2019s conciseness: a meaty paragraph describing the roller-coaster course of Mr. Trump\u2019s tariff regime. Here, with citations to seven separate executive orders omitted for the sake of readability, is the chief justice\u2019s account:<\/p>\n Since imposing each set of tariffs, the president has issued several increases, reductions and other modifications. One month after imposing the 10 percent drug trafficking tariffs on Chinese goods, he increased the rate to 20 percent. One month later, he removed a statutory exemption for Chinese goods under $800. Less than a week after imposing the reciprocal tariffs, the president increased the rate on Chinese goods from 34 percent to 84 percent. The very next day, he increased the rate further still, to 125 percent. This brought the total effective tariff rate on most Chinese goods to 145 percent. The president has also shifted sets of goods into and out of the reciprocal tariff framework ([e.g.,] exempting from reciprocal tariffs beef, fruits, coffee, tea, spices and some fertilizers). And he has issued a variety of other adjustments ([e.g.,] extending \u201cthe suspension of heightened reciprocal tariffs\u201d on Chinese imports).<\/p>\n For all the attention the decision in this case, Learning Resources v. Trump, has received, this paragraph has gone largely unremarked. I understand why; it\u2019s unnecessary to the opinion\u2019s argument. If, as a matter of law, the tariffs are invalid, it doesn\u2019t matter whether they were imposed sensibly or capriciously. The paragraph is, in a word, gratuitous, something that can rarely be said about a passage in a Roberts opinion. So what is it doing there?<\/p>\n The answer, I think, is that the chief justice is sending a message not necessarily or not only to Mr. Trump but also to the waiting world. Something along the lines of, \u201cPeople, this is what we\u2019re dealing with.\u201d The point being not that \u201csome fertilizers\u201d are now exempt from reciprocal tariffs but that a reckless president is sowing chaos in America and around the globe.<\/p>\n We don\u2019t need to know Chief Justice Roberts\u2019s innermost thoughts about Mr. Trump \u2014 whatever they were before the president, in reaction to the tariff decision, described<\/a> him and his majority as \u201cfools\u201d and \u201clap dogs\u201d swayed \u201cby foreign interests<\/a>\u201d \u2014 to discern his exasperation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Chief Justice John Roberts doesn\u2019t waste words. His majority opinion in last week\u2019s tariff ruling was, characteristically, a…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":44379,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[146],"tags":[16773,26327,13624,28180,12309,17653,535,28179,15774,17652,17651,74,17647],"class_list":{"0":"post-44378","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-john-roberts","8":"tag-cook","9":"tag-customs-tariff","10":"tag-donald-j","11":"tag-federal-actions-in-us-cities","12":"tag-federal-reserve-system","13":"tag-john-g-jr","14":"tag-john-roberts","15":"tag-lisa-d","16":"tag-national-guard","17":"tag-roberts","18":"tag-supreme-court-us","19":"tag-trump","20":"tag-united-states-politics-and-government"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@people\/116469777352179263","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44378","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44378"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44378\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/44379"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44378"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44378"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44378"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}