In a recent Supreme Court session, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson found herself in a rather awkward situation while engaging with the Trump Administrations solicitor general, John Sauer, on the topic of tariffs.
The Court is currently deliberating on President Trump's authority to impose tariffs unilaterally on countries that have long exploited American trade policies. This authority is derived from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law that has become the focal point of the case.
According to Gateway Pundit, the Supreme Court had expedited the hearing of this case after the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against President Trump's sweeping tariffs in a 7-4 decision. Sauer, representing the government, faced a barrage of questions from a skeptical bench, with Justice Jackson leading the charge.
She pressed Sauer to provide historical examples of presidents who had similarly enacted tariffs without congressional approval.
Sauer cited President Richard Nixon's 1971 decision to impose a 10% tariff on all imports under the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), the predecessor to the IEEPA. This move was intended to compel other nations to adjust their currencies relative to the U.S. dollar.
However, the tariff was short-lived, as it was rescinded four months later following the Smithsonian Agreement, which realigned and devalued the dollar against other major currencies.
In a surprising twist, Justice Jackson appeared to confuse President Nixon with President Abraham Lincoln during the exchange. After Sauer mentioned Nixon's tariffs, Jackson interjected, "That was not a tariff. It was a licensing agreement during wartime." Sauer clarified, "Im referring to Nixons 1971 tariffs," to which Jackson responded, "Oh, excuse me! I thought you meant Lincoln!"
Sauer continued, "Not only that, but it was upheld by the court of appeals with exclusive jurisdiction under this very frame." Jackson then asked Sauer to slow down, saying, "Back up just a second, youre talking so quickly."
The confusion over historical facts raises questions about the preparedness of some justices in handling complex economic and historical matters. As the Court deliberates on the extent of presidential powers under the IEEPA, the outcome could have significant implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress, particularly in matters of international trade and economic policy.
Login