Conservative law professor William Jacobson of Cornell University, publisher of the Legal Insurrection blog, appeared on the Jesse Kelly show this week and outlined an upcoming Supreme Court case for Trump that he describes as ‘very high stakes.’
The case has to do with the Trump tariffs, and depending on how the court rules, it could have a significant effect on Trump’s economic policy.
Jacobson suggests that it could be a very close call.
Transcript via Legal Insurrection:
Kelly (00:05): The Supreme Court is about to begin another term. I don’t understand these terms. I don’t understand what they’re doing when they’re not in terms, and I also don’t understand what’s coming in this term, but I don’t have to understand any of that because Bill Jacobson understands it all. Joining me now, Cornell University law professor, the Great Bill Jacobson. Bill, what is the Supreme Court term and what do they do when they’re not in their term?
WAJ (00:29): Well, they still do some work. They still have emergency motions, but the term really is just when they hear oral arguments. And it starts first week in October and it runs through potentially June. So that’s what they call a term. And they’re essentially off for the summer, but they’re working over the summer. So term is just a docketing method to get things on the calendar.
Kelly (00:53): Okay. So term is just a term. Just see what I did there, Bill. Alright, so what’s coming? What’s coming up for this term?
WAJ (01:01): Well, we’ve talked about this before, the tariffs, the Trump tariffs is probably the most economically significant case that we’re going to face. And that has to do with whether President Trump, when he imposed the emergency tariffs, exceeded his authority.
There are two issues there. One is did he properly invoke there being an emergency? I think the Supreme Court’s going to say that decision is up to the president. But the more interesting one, which is where he lost in the federal court below, is whether tariffs are even a remedy under this emergency statute. And what they held below in the federal court of appeals was that even if he properly invoked the emergency, tariffs is not one of the remedies. Tariffs are reserved for Congress. The statute doesn’t mention tariffs. So he exceeded his authority.
I think it’s going to be a close call. I don’t know which way that one’s going to go, but his entire economic agenda in many ways, or at least a significant part of it, is built around the tariffs. So this is a very high stakes case.
Kelly (02:14): Okay. So help me understand this Bill, because you’re right, it’s always tariff this and tariff that. And we got a new deal with this country and a new deal with that country. And we struck a deal with the UK. Does that mean if they rule against him that all that stuff becomes unraveled? Is that what that means?
WAJ (02:32): It could, yeah. I mean, people are talking about perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs that have been collected are going to have to be returned to people. So yes, it’s, it’s very high stakes. If they rule that what he did was without authority, then it all comes apart.
This video is cued to start at the 33:58 mark, so just press play:
It’s probably safe to assume that Sotomayor and Jackson will rule against Trump.
Read the full article here