Supreme Court Justices Clash Over Disparate Treatment of Trump and Biden in Tariff Ruling

WASHINGTON — Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch did not hold back as he criticized his fellow Supreme Court justices for their inconsistent treatment of presidential authority claims made by Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

In a 6-3 decision that dismantled most of Trump’s tariffs, Gorsuch authored a separate 46-page opinion, taking aim at the differing applications of legal precedents by his colleagues.

He contended that the justices were applying the same Supreme Court precedent in a contradictory manner, depending on whether it involved Trump or Biden, stating: “It is an interesting turn of events.”

Central to Gorsuch's critique was the “major questions doctrine,” which posits that sweeping presidential actions require explicit congressional authorization. This doctrine was embraced by the conservative-majority court during Biden's presidency to invalidate expansive initiatives, including his student loan forgiveness plan.

However, in the recent ruling against Trump’s tariffs, the conservative majority fractured. Gorsuch, along with Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, found that Trump’s tariffs should have been approved by Congress. In contrast, Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito dissented.

“It shows you how much internal dissension there is on the Supreme Court right now,” remarked Robin Effron, a professor at Fordham University School of Law.

Effron noted that Roberts’ 21-page majority opinion seemed crafted to garner unanimous support but instead highlighted significant internal discord.

Even justices who agreed with the outcome refrained from endorsing Roberts’ application of the major questions doctrine to Trump’s tariffs, raising uncertainties about its future use.

The court's three liberal justices, who previously supported Biden and criticized the major questions doctrine, sided against Trump but again did not endorse the theory.

Gorsuch, a staunch advocate for the major questions doctrine, pointed out the inconsistencies among his colleagues in his opinion.

“Past critics of the major questions doctrine do not object to its application in this case,” he noted, referring to the liberal justices.

“Still others who have joined major questions decisions in the past dissent from today’s application of the doctrine,” he added, addressing the dissenting conservatives.

Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and liberal Justice Elena Kagan all felt compelled to respond to Gorsuch’s remarks in their own opinions, which may explain the lengthy deliberation over the case.

Kagan humorously countered Gorsuch’s suggestion that she was subtly endorsing the major questions theory despite her earlier criticisms. “Given how strong his apparent desire for converts, I almost regret to inform him that I am not one,” she quipped in a footnote directed at Gorsuch.

Jonathan Adler, a professor at William & Mary Law School, acknowledged Gorsuch’s critique of Kagan as valid, stating it is “hard to square” her recent opinion with her past votes.

In a 2022 case where the court ruled against Biden’s climate change initiatives, Kagan remarked that the major questions doctrine seemed to “magically appear” when it suited the conservative majority.

Conversely, Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University’s law school who participated in the legal challenge against the tariffs, argued that dissenting conservatives also displayed contradictions. Kavanaugh contended that the major questions doctrine should not apply to tariffs due to foreign affairs considerations.

“It seems like they want to carve out this arbitrary exception to major questions for tariffs even though it can’t be justified,” Somin stated.

For Adler, the broader implication is significant: despite various legal interpretations, the court ruled against Trump in a pivotal case, countering concerns from many on the left about such an outcome.

“Whether we characterize this as major questions doctrine or not, it’s very clear that the court thinks it is important to police the boundaries of what powers Congress has given the executive branch,” he added. “There were plenty of folks who didn’t think that would happen in cases involving the Trump administration.”