Supreme Court Splits GOP, Strikes Down Trump Tariffs

Six Supreme Court justices just handed Donald Trump a stinging defeat—and exposed a fracture running straight through the heart of the Republican Party.

In Learning Resources v. Trump, the Court struck down Trump's sweeping tariffs, but the 6-3 decision tells a more complex story than the numbers suggest. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by fellow Republicans Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, alongside all three Democratic justices. Yet the Democrats strategically withheld support from key portions of Roberts' reasoning, securing their policy win while avoiding doctrinal compromises.

The Legal Battleground

Trump had claimed authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants presidents power to "regulate" imports and exports. Roberts dismantled this interpretation with surgical precision, explaining that "regulate" means to "fix, establish, or control" but does not encompass the power to tax.

The Chief Justice's research proved devastating: while federal law contains numerous statutes granting executives authority to "regulate," Trump's legal team couldn't identify a single statute where regulatory power includes taxation authority. The logic was ironclad—and fatal to Trump's case.

But Roberts didn't stop there. He also invoked the controversial "major questions doctrine," arguing that tariffs of such economic magnitude require explicit congressional authorization. This doctrine, previously weaponized only against Democratic presidents, suddenly found itself applied to a Republican administration.

The Democratic Strategy

Justice Elena Kagan's concurring opinion revealed the Democrats' shrewd calculation. Writing for herself and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, she explained they saw "no need" to invoke major questions doctrine because "ordinary tools of statutory interpretation amply support today's result."

This surgical precision allowed Democrats to achieve their primary objective—eliminating the tariffs—without legitimizing a legal doctrine they view as partisan. They secured the policy victory while preserving their principled opposition to judicial overreach.

Republican Fractures Exposed

The split among Republican justices reflects deeper ideological tensions within the party. Paul Ryan-style economic libertarians found themselves aligned against MAGA-style interventionists who embrace trade protectionism. The Federalist Society, that bastion of conservative legal thought, had already signaled opposition to the tariffs at a spring conference on executive power.

Michael McConnell, a George W. Bush appointee who led the legal challenge, represented the old-guard Republican commitment to free trade. His involvement highlighted how Trump's protectionist agenda conflicts with decades of conservative economic orthodoxy.

The Court's decision mirrors this broader Republican identity crisis. Are conservatives the party of limited government and free markets, or the party of economic nationalism and executive power? Learning Resources suggests the answer remains contested, even at the highest levels of the judiciary.

The Limits of Loyalty

Perhaps most striking is what this case reveals about judicial independence. The same Court that granted Trump sweeping immunity for presidential crimes drew the line at economic policy that divides Republicans. When conservative legal elites and business interests align against Trump, even his Supreme Court appointees proved willing to rule against him.

This selective independence raises uncomfortable questions about the Court's consistency. Why does presidential immunity deserve deference while trade policy demands strict construction? The answer may lie less in legal principle than in political coalition management.