What about the Iranian Hostage Case (Dames & Moore)?  What about two major Supreme Court doctrines (Major Question Doctrine and Non-delegation Doctrine), and presidential foreign policy – national security powers?  These are among issues that the Supreme Court will confront when deciding Trump’s tariff case that is set for oral argument tomorrow. Other issues include some very basic statutory interpretations.

     To me, most importantly is the issue of whether or not some justices will put aside their obvious bias toward Trump and vote according to the law. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, who were all appointed to the Supreme Court by Trump. While Trump won’t be at the oral arguments, the U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent said that he will “hopefully [be] in the front row and … have a ringside seat.” Is this administration attempt at intimidation?

    This case will be essential to deciding the most important case this term — concerning Trump’s power grab. My guess — the case will be decided by a very narrow vote — one way or another. Hopefully, against Trump’s unlawful tariffs.

     The country is against these tariffs — both businesses and people — as well as the global trading community. Even though most have tried to avoid his whimsical and grievous behavior. It’s the small firms that have brought litigation, not the large ones. It’s been conservative organizations that have bankrolled and joined the litigation. We’ll see …………

……………………………………………………………………

• The Iranian Hostage Crisis began on this day in 1979. As CNN reported last week, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act played a role in President Jimmy Carter’s work to resolve the crisis; he invoked IEEPA to explain why he could use “frozen Iranian assets as a ‘bargaining chip.'” The Supreme Court later reviewed and upheld his interpretation of IEEPA, which was supported by his successor, President Ronald Reagan, in a decision that may play a role in this term’s tariffs case …. Big business sits out the Supreme Court fight over Donald Trump’s tariffs — The challenges to Trump’s tariffs that are now in front of the Supreme Court came from a group of states and small businesses, not large retailers. The names of well-known, large companies also won’t be found among the organizations that filed friend-of-the-court briefs on the tariffs, even though companies such as General Electric, Procter & Gamble, and Intel have weighed in on other recent, high-profile cases, according to CNN. Legal experts and “multiple people involved with the case” …. that major companies’ relative silence may stem from fear of retribution from the Trump administration or insulation from the immediate financial effects of the tariffs, as some “can switch supply chains or absorb the costs.” Scotus Blog (11.4.25).  

• “The tariffs case is the first time the justices have weighed the underlying legal merits of a key administration priority …. The case has divided the conservative legal community …. The case will also force the justices to address two doctrines favored by the conservative legal movement, both of which appear to work against the president’s claims. The “major questions doctrine” … and the other — the “nondelegation doctrine” — says that Congress cannot transfer unlimited legislative powers — like its taxing authority — to the executive branch …. A recent concurring opinion from Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in another case that suggested the two doctrines play little to no role in the context of national security and foreign policy emergencies.” “Justices and Tariffs.” New York Times (11.4.25).

• “Trump likes to call 19th-century President William McKinley the “Tariff King.” The Supreme Court on Wednesday will take up cases that will determine if Trump and every other President really have the power to act like a king (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, Trump v. V.O.S. Selections) …. Trump this spring slapped tariffs on most countries around the world, declaring that the U.S. trade deficit and foreign fentanyl are national emergencies …. Arbitrary taxation without representation is precisely what the Constitution’s Framers sought to prevent by vesting power over taxes and trade with Congress ….     As for the law, the U.S. has run a trade deficit for 50 years and deaths from fentanyl have been declining. How do these suddenly qualify as “national emergencies”? ….  The Trump Administration tries to leapfrog all of these statutory obstacles by citing the President’s Article II foreign-policy authority. Few conservatives are more deferential to presidential overseas authority, but the power of the purse still belongs to Congress and can’t simply be wished away with the words “foreign policy.” Tariffs are taxes on Americans.”   “Tariff King and Supreme Court.” Wall Street Journal (11.3.25).