petermshane a/k/a petermshane.bksy.social

A modest proposal for how the justices can do the right thing and be true to themselves as they decide the fate of independent agencies. From @petermshane: washingtonmonthly.com/2026/01/02/sav…

Interesting commentary from @BrookingsInst by @petermshane @BobLitan on Legal and economic aspects of the Supreme Court’s upcoming tariff decisions. They make an argument that the "Supreme Court is likely to hold that the tariffs are lawful and the economic consequences, regardless of the judicial outcome". The most interesting aspects, which is noteworthy and should be highlighted, are: 1. Even if the Court upholds the lower courts’ rulings against the president, he likely has the requisite authority under other trade laws essentially to reimpose the IEEPA tariffs going forward, albeit with some procedural speedbumps. The only immediate, major consequence if the president loses these cases is that his administration will have to rebate roughly $130 billion in tariff duties by the end of the year. The amount could be higher if the Court issues its decision thereafter. 2. The immediate economic impact of the Trump tariffs, under whatever authority they are issued, is also modest in the short run, mainly because there has been little retaliation, relative to the extensive retaliation in response to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs during the Depression. 3. The one exception to watch, however, is whether and to what extent China sharply reduces exports of rare earth minerals down the road, once the recently negotiated truce on that issue between the U.S. and China expires. That could have a noticeable impact not only on the U.S. economy generally but also on our defence industries and thus national security. Conclusion: The economic effects of the Supreme Court’s decision about the reach of the IEEPA may prove marginal at most, depending on how far the administration goes in imposing tariffs pursuant to other statutory authorities. It will be the legal precedent and the Court’s rationale that will matter most to the overall trajectory of presidential power. The scope of authority the Court reads into the IEEPA, the degree of deference the Court does or does not give to presidential fact-finding, and anything the Court might say about the future of the nondelegation doctrine will all be of keen interest. brookings.edu/articles/legal…