Washington DC [US], February 20 : US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, on Friday in his dissenting opinion after the US apex court struck down President Donald Trump's sweeping tariff measures, underscored that there are still several federal statutes that provide the President with broad authority to impose tariffs.
According to the note, Justice Kavanaugh stated that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Sections 122, 201, and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 under US Federal Law grant the US President "expansive tariff authority."
"As noted above, many current federal laws continue to grant the President expansive tariff authority, including the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338). Neither the plaintiffs nor the Court has suggested that the numerous laws granting tariff power to the President violate the Constitution's separation of powers," the Justice wrote.
Justice Kavanaugh also stated the immediate consequences of the ruling could be significant, including potential multi-billion-dollar refunds by the US.
"In the meantime, however, the interim effects of the Court's decision could be substantial. The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others," Justice Kavanaugh noted in his dissent.
The majority ruling held that the US President lacked authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping import duties on goods from nearly all US trading partners.
In its verdict, the US Supreme Court held that the IEEPA does not grant the President the authority to levy tariffs.
The Bench of Nine Justices ruled 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts authoring the majority opinion. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
"IEEPA's grant of authority to 'regulate . . . importation' falls short. IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties. The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word "regulate" to authorize taxation. And until now, no President has read IEEPA to confer such power," Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his opinion.
"We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs," he added.