Trump tariffs decision rests on arguments conservatives repeatedly used against Biden

The blockbuster federal court ruling that halts President Donald Trump from imposing some of his most sweeping tariffs rests in part on a legal theory that conservative groups repeatedly used at the Supreme Court to block former President Joe Biden’s agenda.

The blockbuster federal court ruling that halts President Donald Trump from imposing some of his most sweeping tariffs rests in part on a legal theory that conservative groups repeatedly used at the Supreme Court to block former President Joe Biden’s agenda. A push by the majority-conservative Supreme Court to use what’s known as the “major questions doctrine” to trim the power of the White House and federal agencies to act without congressional approval may play a role when the case inevitably works its way up to the high court. The Trump administration is already pledging to bring an emergency appeal to the justices in coming days. The US Court of International Trade on Wednesday blocked Trump from relying on a 1977 law dealing with economic emergencies to impose sweeping duties on much of the world. It did so in part by noting separation-of-powers theories the Supreme Court has used to shut down some of Biden’s policies, such as his efforts to forgive student loans, curb power plant emissions and extend a moratorium on evictions at the tail end of the pandemic. “There’s a broader movement in this direction,” said Andrew Morris, senior litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a libertarian-leaning law group that is active at the Supreme Court and that sued Trump over the tariffs in a separate case. “The general trend is that the court is looking closely at whether Congress has delegated certain power to the executive branch – agencies and presidents,” Morris said. “That trend weighs against the president in this case.”