Vice President JD Vance has expressed strong discontent with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that overturned President Donald Trump’s global tariffs, calling the decision “lawlessness.” The 6-3 ruling, which struck down the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), has stirred significant reaction among those who support Trump’s trade policies.
Vance took to X to emphasize that the ruling complicates the president’s ability to safeguard American industries. He pointed out that Congress granted the president authority to regulate imports, but the Supreme Court disregarded that intention. “Today, the Supreme Court decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to ‘regulate imports,’ didn’t actually mean it,” Vance stated, further criticizing the ruling as indicative of judicial overreach.
This decision marks the first instance where the Supreme Court has definitively rejected one of Trump’s second-term policies. Although the court has historically provided Trump with considerable leeway on executive matters, in this case, a majority of justices decided that Trump overstepped by imposing sweeping tariffs without explicit congressional authorization. The tariffs in question were imposed in phases, with significant duties placed on Mexican, Canadian, and Chinese imports, justified by concerns over fentanyl trafficking and a trade deficit that Trump described as national emergencies.
Interestingly, Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas dissented from the majority decision. Kavanaugh hinted that there may still be options for future tariffs, noting, “Although I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward.” He suggested that other federal statutes exist, which could provide a legal foundation for imposing tariffs, although they might require a more intricate approval process than the IEEPA model. This perspective opens a potential avenue for the administration moving forward, despite the current setback.
In a swift response to the ruling, Trump announced plans to implement a new global tariff of 10 percent under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, effectively maintaining his trade policies and reassuring stakeholders that tariffs will remain a vital part of his administration’s economic strategy. “Effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs remain in place,” Trump declared. He also signaled the initiation of further investigations into unfair trading practices, a move intended to bolster America’s protective measures against foreign competition.
This ruling reflects the ongoing tensions between branches of government regarding trade authority. The implications of this decision will likely reverberate through future legislative and executive actions related to trade policy. As it stands, Vance’s immediate criticism points to deeper concerns among supporters regarding the balance of power and the interpretation of laws intended to protect American interests.
"*" indicates required fields
