Podcast Summary: Tangle

Episode: Trump's Tariffs Before the Supreme Court

Host: Isaac Saul
Date: November 6, 2025

Episode Overview

This Tangle episode dives into the Supreme Court's oral arguments on President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to unilaterally impose tariffs, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The episode explores the legal and constitutional stakes of the case, presents arguments from both the political left and right, and features Isaac Saul’s nonpartisan evaluation of the hearings, potential outcomes, and implications for executive power.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Background to the Supreme Court Case

• In April, President Trump invoked IEEPA to impose "Liberation Day tariffs" on most US trading partners, claiming their trade practices posed an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to national security and the US economy ([06:58]).
• Two companies, Learning Resources (educational toys) and Vos Selections (wine importer), sued, challenging Trump’s authority to impose these tariffs under IEEPA.
• Lower courts ruled against Trump, stating IEEPA did not authorize such tariffs; the administration appealed to the Supreme Court ([06:58]).

2. Supreme Court Oral Arguments Recap

• The majority of justices, including some conservatives, were skeptical that IEEPA allows such broad tariff powers ([07:01]).
• Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned if Congress could "just abdicate all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce" ([08:27]).
• Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued IEEPA grants the president significant foreign affairs powers, but was pressed on whether this could let presidents impose tariffs for almost any declared emergency, even for something like climate change ([08:44]).
• The Court is expected to expedite its review, possibly issuing a decision by year’s end ([09:15]).

3. Analysis from Both Sides of the Political Spectrum

What the Left is Saying ([11:56]–[15:25])

• Anticipation of a Ruling Against Trump:
  • The government’s arguments are seen as weak and judicial conservatives are expected to rule against expansive executive tariff powers.
• Major Questions Doctrine:
  • Ian Millhiser (Vox): The doctrine, previously used to curb Biden's actions, may now be directed at a Republican president, further institutionalizing its use ([12:40]).
    • “If any two among Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett hew to these views, it is almost certain that the tariffs will fall.” — Ian Millhiser, Vox ([13:29]).
• Skepticism of Unlimited Presidential Power:
  • Mark Joseph Stern (Slate): Called arguments "a bloodbath for Trump," highlighting bipartisan skepticism of unilateral taxes ([14:07]).
    • “Perhaps we should have guessed that its extraordinary deference to the president could be outweighed only by its hatred of taxes.” — Mark Joseph Stern, Slate ([14:13]).
  • Adris Calhoun (Atlantic): Emphasizes constitutional need for congressional authorization of tariffs, praising institutionalism among justices ([15:08]).

What the Right is Saying ([15:28]–[19:45])

• Arguments Did Not Go Well for Trump:
  • Dan McLaughlin (National Review): Trump's legal team forced to concede no inherent presidential power to impose tariffs; justices deeply skeptical ([16:07]).
    • “Justice Neil Gorsuch fretted that it’s inherent authority all the way down… Sauer was compelled to concede that presidents have no inherent tariff powers.” — Dan McLaughlin, National Review ([16:54]).
  • Daniel McCarthy (New York Post): Argues upholding IEEPA’s scope is logical, but warns that ruling the law unconstitutional would itself be judicial overreach ([17:45]).
  • James Rogan (Washington Examiner): Laments that unchecked executive tariff powers would gut a constitutional safeguard that vests taxing power solely in Congress; predicts Trump will lose, but notes other legal paths for tariffs exist ([18:39]).

4. Host Isaac Saul’s Take ([20:14])

• Predicts Supreme Court Will Overturn Trump's Tariffs:

  • The skepticism during oral argument, especially regarding the Major Questions doctrine, signals a likely defeat for Trump.
  • Cites the principle: “The executive branch cannot enact programs that have vast economic and political significance without explicit authorization from Congress.”
  • Calls the invocation of a trade national emergency “absurd” given the US’s economic standing.

• Key Quote:

  • “There is no national emergency on trade. To me, this story is as simple as that… Saying the current state of affairs, the strongest economy in the world, constitutes a national emergency is absurd. Full stop.” — Isaac Saul ([22:32])

• Potential Outcomes and Practical Effects:

  • Notes the long legal process has allowed tariffs to remain in place, raising significant revenue but yielding mixed economic results.
  • Wonders how restitution or Congress’ potential intervention could play out, but blames executive overreach for the legal and policy complications.

• Reflections on Tariffs’ Actual Impact:

  • Tariff revenue fell short of expectations; some inflation, but not catastrophic; companies shifted supply chains.
  • "Maybe that economic crash is coming and the courts are saving Trump from himself, but the tariffs are at least raising significant revenues without destroying the economy." ([25:36])

• Conclusion:

  • The Supreme Court blocking these tariffs would reinforce limits on executive power.
  • Trump could employ other legal avenues for targeted tariffs, but blanket action is likely unconstitutional.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Justice Neil Gorsuch questioning presidential power:

  "What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce for that matter, or declare war to the president?" — Neil Gorsuch to Solicitor General Sauer ([08:27])

• Solicitor General Sauer on climate emergency tariffs:

  "It's very likely that that could be done," (responding to whether a president could impose tariffs for a climate emergency) — D. John Sauer ([09:00])

• Host Isaac Saul on the implications:

  "It was a remarkable argument to hear a Republican administration put forward before the Supreme Court all to preserve these tariffs." ([21:50])

• Mark Joseph Stern’s take on the oral argument:

  "We have spent 10 months waiting to see if and when this court would set a limit on Trump's power. Perhaps we should have guessed that its extraordinary deference to the president could be outweighed only by its hatred of taxes." ([14:13])

Important Timestamps

• Opening and Introduction: [01:36]
• Main Topic Introduction: [05:20]
• Context & Background: [06:58]
• Supreme Court Oral Arguments: [07:01]
• Left Perspective Summary: [11:56]
• Right Perspective Summary: [15:28]
• Isaac Saul’s Take: [20:14]
• Significant Quotes/Exchanges:
  • Gorsuch’s probing of executive power: [08:27]
  • Sauer’s climate change emergency response: [09:00]
  • Saul’s “no national emergency” assertion: [22:32]

Flow and Takeaways

This episode of Tangle offers an in-depth, accessible, and balanced look at a major constitutional test of executive power over trade. Through clear summaries, direct quotes, and engaging analysis, listeners are informed of both the legal proceedings and the broader issues at stake: the separation of powers, the risk of executive overreach, and the economic realities of modern tariffs. Saul’s commentary helps demystify the implications for both the future of American governance and everyday economic life.

For further reading or to support Tangle, visit readtangle.com.