Cornell Law Professor William Jacobson recently discussed a critical Supreme Court case that could have major implications for former President Donald Trump’s economic strategy. Appearing on the Jesse Kelly show, Jacobson described the case surrounding Trump’s tariffs as “very high stakes.”
As the new Supreme Court term nears, Jacobson shed light on what to expect. “The term really is just when they hear oral arguments. And it starts the first week in October and it runs through potentially June,” he explained. He acknowledged that while the justices have a break in the summer, they still engage in some work during that time, dealing with emergency motions and preparing for the forthcoming cases.
One of those significant cases revolves around the tariffs imposed by Trump. Jacobson noted, “The tariffs, the Trump tariffs, are probably the most economically significant case that we’re going to face.” At the heart of the issue is whether Trump overstepped his authority by imposing emergency tariffs. Jacobson pointed out that the Supreme Court will need to address two primary questions. First, did Trump appropriately declare an emergency? Second, is imposing tariffs a legitimate remedy under the emergency statute?
The lower federal court ruled against Trump, deeming that even if he invoked an emergency correctly, tariffs do not fall within the remedies allowed by the statute. The court asserted that this power is reserved for Congress. Jacobson characterized this ruling as a serious challenge for Trump, stating, “If they rule that what he did was without authority, then it all comes apart.”
The stakes are exceptionally high. If the Supreme Court sides against Trump, it could dismantle portions of his economic agenda, a reality that could lead to significant shifts in economic policy. Jacobson emphasized the potential fallout, with estimates suggesting that hundreds of billions of dollars collected in tariffs might need to be refunded if the court rules against Trump.
In discussing the political landscape, Jacobson’s insights suggest that the justices’ leanings may already be set. He noted, “It’s probably safe to assume that Sotomayor and Jackson will rule against Trump.” This sentiment echoes a broader scrutiny over how personal biases could influence outcomes in such a high-profile case.
As the Supreme Court prepares to tackle this sensitive topic, the implications of their decision extend beyond Trump and his administration, potentially affecting the broader economy and future tariff policy. With Jacobson’s detailed analysis, the conversation around this case promises to be a focal point in the upcoming term, raising questions about authority, economic strategy, and the balance of power within the government.
"*" indicates required fields
