In case you’ve been under a rock, we have this president who loves tariffs. I don’t mean he thinks they’re good. I mean, he is actively trying to figure out how he could stick his Anthony Wiener in tariffs and make little orange tariff babies—it’s unsettling.
Here’s the issue, tariffs are a tax on goods, under another name. The only thing making them different is unlike a sales tax that applies to everything except tax exempt stuff, and are applied at the point of sale, tariffs only apply to foreign goods, and the tax is applied at the point of import.
Tax Man Max from Schoolhouse Rock
With that in mind, I’ll take you back to grade school government. Who has the power to levy taxes? Not the fucking president, that’s who. There’s this group of 535 assholes (subject to change) we call congress—that’s their bag, baby.
Despite the fact that the GOP control the Senate and the House of Representatives, Trump refuses to work to get congress to enact such tariffs—he’s decided he must do it himself by fiat.
Trump, not certain whether he’s a fucking king or not, decided to figure out if there was some law, any law, that would give him the power to impose tariffs at will, and he fell on The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
This law essentially says, if the president declares there to be an emergency, he has certain powers to deal with that emergency. The phrase in the statute he relies on to impose tariffs says:
The President may regulate importation or exportation of any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest.
I won’t go into how stupid this is, but suffice it to say, I have a trade deficit with Walmart. Not because they’re taking advantage of me and creating an emergency, they just have more things I want from them, than they want from me.
This is a global economy, and trade deficits are a natural part of it. They’re certainly not a fucking emergency. Not to mention, this was often done because someone from that country annoyed him. To argue he was somehow methodical and precise in this, would be ridiculous.
So, anyway, the folks at Learning Resources, Inc. buy some shit to sell here in the US that comes from lands far far away, and Trump’s tariffs are making it hard for them to stay profitable. So they dusted off their copy of IEEPA, and were like, “I don’t see the word tariff in this mother fucker anywhere.”
And with that, they decided to challenge our Tariffer-In-Chief for enacting tariffs they believe he does not have the power to enact. They argue that the major questions doctrine (remember that from cases like Loper Bright?) should certainly apply here—that these tariffs affect a shit ton of folks, and it’s a power the president wasn’t explicitly given. Therefore, fuck that asshole.
As per usual, a lower court decided against Trump. Also, as per usual, Trump got his wittle feewings hurt, and appealed. I told you, he really wants to have a little orange tariff baby—he ain’t fucking around.
So off we go to SCOTUS, and to see if they’ll give him an unearned victory.
The Arguments: Team Trump
First up, we have the tender strains of John “Gravel Voice” Sauer. I don’t mean to pick on the guy, but I think him and RFK Jr. went to the same vocal coach.
John Sauer
Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: On April 2, President Trump determined that our exploding trade deficits had brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe. He further pronounced that the traffic of fentanyl and other opioids into our country has created a public health crisis, taking hundreds of thousands of American lives. President Trump has declared that these emergencies are country-killing and not sustainable, that they threaten the bedrock of our national and economic security, and that fixing them will make America strong, financially viable, and a respected country again.
Counsel John Sauer
Due to IEEPA tariffs, President Trump has negotiated agreements worth trillions of dollars with major trading partners, including most recently China. Unwinding those agreements, he warns, would expose us to ruthless trade retaliation by far more aggressive countries and drive America from strength to failure, with ruinous economic and national security consequences. In Dames & Moore against Reagan, this Court held that IEEPA’s sweeping and unqualified language grants the President’s actions the strongest presumption of validity and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation. Yet plaintiffs argue that tariffs, IEEPA’s least blunt and most nimble tool, are virtually the only tool that Congress did not grant the President to deal with foreign emergencies. That is wrong. The phrase “regulate importation” plainly embraces tariffs, which are among the most traditional and direct methods of regulating importation. And plaintiffs concede that IEEPA authorizes quotas and other tariff equivalents. The major questions doctrine does not apply here. IEEPA confers major powers to address major problems on the President, who is perhaps the most major actor in the realm of foreign affairs. And the nondelegation doctrine casts no doubt on IEEPA because Congress may assign the President broad authority regarding the conduct of foreign affairs, where he enjoys his own inherent Article II powers. I welcome the Court’s questions.
So he begins with a “ends justify the means” statement. That’s not how any of this works, when it comes to presidential powers.
Then, his tactic is to argue some perceived success of Trump’s tariffs, as if that’s justification. He’s taking a marketing approach to lawyering. Novel, but seems stupid.
Anyway…Sauer picks a tenuous argument that somehow, IEEPA giving the president the power to regulate importation should be meant to include tariffs. This is a stretch, but we’ve been here before with Sauer and Trump in the presidential immunity case, where I thought his arguments looked like trash, and yet that fucker won.
It’s worth noting, he used a pretty logically fallacious argument, saying that somehow the other side is saying that the only tool not available to Trump is tariffs. They absolutely did not say that. Quite the strawman he built there.
He also argues somehow that tariffs are the least harmful way to regulate trade, as opposed to bans or embargos. But that’s also just him giving an unsubstantiated opinion.
There are an infinite number of ideas the Trumpster Fire could have come up with to regulate trade. That’s how new ideas work. Most of them were potentially open to him. So the idea that tariffs were the only tool, is absolutely ridiculous. Even if Trump isn’t exactly a creative genius, he has people around him who could have come up with something new.
Justice Thomas the elder chimed in and asked how the major questions doctrine doesn’t apply here.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
He first started by arguing that congress certainly inferred a president to have some major authority on certain issues, apparently setting the stage for why they inferred this major issue to him.
This SCOTUS has almost always struck shit down for “major questions doctrine” reasons in the past. So Sauer attempting to short circuit that philosophy seems ill advised.
He then went on to say that congress infers such major powers, but “keeps an eye on that shit” just in case.
He argued some how, The Constitution’s Article II powers over foreign affairs often give him such massive authority.
What the fuck? Is he stoned?
Before he could get to his next point, Justice Kagan chimed in and was like, “Bro, do you have a single example here? Taxation is an Article I power delegated to Congress, and tariffs are part of that shit. So what article II power is so fucking huge, that you think it justifies him taking Article I powers away from Congress? Are you fucking mad?”
He tried to argue that if shit were all cool and the gang with these foreign entities we trade with, IEEPA wouldn’t apply. But somehow because Trump decided trade deficits were an emergency, he can then use said declaration to do something about that shit, because he has constitutional authority over foreign affairs.
Ballsy!
He went on to say, and I’m not making this shit up…
We don’t contend that what’s being exercised here is the power to tax. It’s the power to regulate foreign commerce. These are regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs. The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental.
Sauer has balls the size of Jupiter to look at these nine justices dead in the eye, and bold-faced bullshit them.
Justice Sotomayor, wholly unimpressed with Sauer’s argument, chimed in with what is essentially, “Are you fucking nuts?” The power to tax resides with congress. So you argue tariffs are not a tax to circumvent that. But clearly, it’s a fucking tax. It raises revenue for the government, for fuck’s sake.
She then went on to questions his “it’s regulatory” claim. She’s like, “You’re raising revenue, man. If you wanted to limit goods coming from China, you just fucking limit them with quotas or an embargo. Your dumb fucking boss is the one who decided to make revenue off of it.”
Official Portrait of United States Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor Click for Biography
She also blasted Sauer on the notion that somehow the president just arbitrarily deciding something is an emergency doesn’t all of a sudden give him new powers to enact sweeping taxes. Otherwise, every fucking president would be doing that shit.
Sauer, answering the major questions doctrine point first, somehow felt his iron clad defense was that the court had never applied the major questions doctrine to foreign policy. That’s it. That’s his brilliant fucking response. We’re talking about a tax, which he know kills his whole claim, so he’s trying his level best to reframe it as a foreign policy issue.
Sotomayor decided to hit him with the ole hypothetical. She’s like, “So Biden could have just declared that student loan debt was an emergency, and then slapped a tariff on foreign oil to pay for it? He’s declared an emergency, and it would have went against foreign goods?
Sauer stammered a bit without getting to an answer before Sotomayor, still like a dog with a bone, was like, “I can point to at least 16 fucking laws here where congress wrote in the word tariff or tax into a law when they wanted that to be an option. But they didn’t in IEEPA. So what logic do you have to suggest that they inferred it here when they didn’t explicitly write it in.”
Sauer pointed to a different case (Algonquin) where the court allowed then president Gerald Ford to set licensing fees on foreign goods if the secretary of the treasury argued that a country was importing so much of something that it created a national security issue. This relied on section 232(b) of the Trade Expansion Act of 1974 (TEA). They were concerned about oil imports, specifically.
38th President of the United States – Gerald Ford
But the Algonquin opinion was a narrow ruling, and they even stated that allowing this specific thing shouldn’t lead future courts to give license to the president to do similar shit.
They allowed this because the specific law in question delegated quite specifically, the power to the president to regulate the import of these goods, which they felt must include tariffs, licenses, etc.
Frankly, this is so far the only good argument I’ve heard from Sauer, and it’s still a little sketchy because the court literally said they should not consider this ruling to allow broader presidential authority, which is exactly what Sauer is doing here.
Also worth noting, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (TEA) they’re citing, during peacetime, requires the Secretary of Commerce to do a formal investigation and show a national security risk, before the president can impose fees on those goods.
Trump has used this law to put tariffs on steel, aluminum, and oil before, so he has relied on it as well as IEEPA he’s using now. However, many of the tariffs Trump has imposed are political in nature, and therefore wouldn’t fall under TEA, if you were wondering.
Justice Jackson took issue with Sauer wanting to compare the Trading With The Enemy Act (TWEA)’s interpretation to IEEPA.
Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
Congress enacted this legislation (IEEPA) with the intent of preventing the President from having unlimited powers in this area, and you’re asking us to now interpret that statute consistent with an understanding that Congress wanted to allow the President to do pretty much whatever he wanted in this area.
You see, TWEA was passed in 1917—WW1 times, but as time went on, congress felt it gave the president too much power. So IEEPA, passed in 1977, was meant to restrain some of that, and better define what the president could and could not do during an economic emergency.
Sauer argued that the phrase “regulate importation” must carry with it, the power to impose tariffs. He also places a lot of weight that the duty is due “at the border” as if to say, it’s not a tax on the people, because it occurs at the border, not within the border. Hint: That’s not a thing.
Justice Barrett was next to hit Sauer with a question. She kept it simple. She asked:
General Sauer, can I just ask you a question? Can you point to any other place in the Code or any other time in history where that phrase together, “regulate importation,” has been used to confer tariff -imposing authority?
Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Sauer really stumbled on this one, as he could only cite the court’s rulings on Algonquin, and similar instances, but not where Congress specifically conferred this power with the “regulate importation” text.
After citing precedents several times, even Sotomayor had had enough, and point blank asked him:
Could you just answer the Justice’s question?
But all he had was unrelated precedents. He kept arguing that foreign tariffs are regulating imports, as if somehow he can’t believe they don’t understand that.
Again, IEEPA (1977) amended TWEA (1917). As you might imagine from the name, this was about a president, during war time, being able to ban imports from someone who’s our enemy. But then in 1933, FDR got it amended to broaden it from “only during war time” to “during any national emergency.” Let’s just say, presidents abused that shit, so IEEPA was formed to reign it back in. This was what Justice Jackson was complaining about above.
So congress did a little “copy and paste” shit with TWEA to IEEPA. To that point, counsel Sauer argued:
Let me put it this way: You look at all nine verbs together and you’re looking at a spectrum of powers from the most sort of negative, “nullify,” “block,” “prohibit,” “void,” to the most affirmative, “direct,” “compel,” and then also powers in between that are more intermediate, “regulate,” “investigate,” and so forth. So the natural common -sense inference from that grammatical structure is the intention of Congress to sort of cover the waterfront.
So his argument is that because congress used that same language in IEEPA, surely they still meant for the president to be able to impose tariffs, and with all the negative, position, and ambiguous words, he can’t see how tariffs aren’t just a part of that.
But in response to this, Justice Kagan said:
Well, possible, General, possible, except Congress did take out a whole bunch of verbs. It took out “confiscate,” “vest,” “hold,” “use,” “administer,” “liquidate,” “sell,” which were in the prior statute. And crucially, what it doesn’t have here is anything that refers to raising revenue. So it has a lot of verbs. It has a lot of actions that can be taken under this statute. It just doesn’t have the one you want.
Justice Sotomayor chimed in with:
Official Portrait of United States Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor Click for Biography
I’m sorry, counsel, it doesn’t say “regulate tariffs.” It says “regulate importations and exportations.” You agree that they can’t put tariffs or taxes on exportations constitutionally?
He agreed.
So she was like, “Then why the fuck should we assume it means to confer the power to tariff imports?”
Again, his only argument is that regulating imports must include the power to tariff.
Sotomayor, still skeptical asked:
Why is it that Congress has always used “regulate” and “tax” together in the Code? Are you telling us that with respect to its use of “regulate” in other statutes, the taxing reference is superfluous? They didn’t need to do that?
His argument was that going back to TWEA and it’s power to tariff, there’s pedigree here.
But IEEPA replaced TWEA because TWEA was being abused. They were literally reigning in presidential power. So by what logic would such a huge power like tariffs somehow be casually left in place, even though they didn’t put that language in there?
Justice Roberts really hammered Sauer on the idea that tariffs are taxes, and it seems pretty sketch that congress just gave that away to the president, when IEEPA was intended to reign in presidents.
And all this is somehow based on the idea that imposing tariffs is the main way of regulating imports? It’s just not. There’s embargos, quotas, product bans, and any new shit the president could think up. Sauer’s argument that tariffs is the only way, is pretty ridiculous.
Sauer argued that revenue raising was just “incidental.” That the goal, is to get people to stop buying foreign goods and only buy American. In that case, no revenue would be raised, making these tariffs regulatory.
Justice Sotomayor jumped in and asked, “if that’s your fucking goal, then why the fuck didn’t that orange prick just bar importations altogether. If that’s his fucking goal, embargos and bans are much more effective than tariffs. It literally fixes the problem overnight.”
Justice Jackson then pointed out that TWEA, via a senate report, explained that it was trying to control or freeze property transactions where a foreign interest was involved. It didn’t say a fucking thing about raising revenue. She also points out that this was a wartime provision, to prevent trading with an enemy country. How the fuck then, does this justify tariffs on our friends?
Sauer again reiterated it wasn’t about raising revenue, even though that’s all Trump talks about it being for. Then went on to say, that quotas are basically the same as tariffs, which they’re certainly fucking not. I think his tactic of assuming the justices are morons isn’t going to favor him here.
If I may riff on this a bit. He keeps arguing quotas were part of the language, and they're similar to tariffs, so he doesn't see the harm. This is stupid. quotas just limit amounts of goods that can come in. Tariffs add taxes to goods that are paid by the American people. The idea that Sauer and other Trump cronies refuse to acknowledge that, is insultingly stupid.
Up to now, most of the arguments were statutory. Meaning, does the IEEPA statute give the president the power to enact tariffs?
But justice Kagan then moved on to a constitutional question about whether congress can delegate it’s power to tax to congress.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan
This is sometimes referred to as the nondelegation doctrine. A philosophic principle that basically says congress cannot give away it’s powers to the president, without clear guidelines.
Sauer and Kagan had quite the lengthy exchange here, but ultimately he relies on the idea that this is merely about foreign affairs, not taxation. Again, hitting the ole, “It’s a regulatory tariff, not a tax” argument.
Next up was Justice Gorsuch. I’m just gonna say this now, I think he takes the major questions doctrine, and the nondelegation doctrine pretty damn seriously. He launched into a very polite tirade, which included this…
What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, for that matter, declare war, to the President?
Sauer responded that he didn’t think they could do that, and Gorsuch literally just responded, “Why not?”
He’s not wrong. That’s kinda Sauer’s argument.
Sauer tried to go back to IEEPA and it’s “limitations” which are kinda a joke. He’s talking about how the president has to declare an emergency first, and shit like that. But the executive branch controls that, so there’s no real guardrails on that shit. The president can just call it an emergency for whatever reason they want, and they’re off to the races. There’s no limits on how much he could tariff, as evidenced by his 100%+ tariffs he hammered on some countries, nor is there a limit to how long the tariffs can be in place, in IEEPA, remember, tariffs aren’t mentioned at all.
So it’s a pretty ridiculous argument from Sauer, which he also made with Justice Sotomayor, who pointed out that there’s nothing really stopping the president from declaring an emergency.
But Gorsuch nipped that shit in the bud. He responded…
I’m not asking about the statute. General. I’m asking for your theory of the Constitution and why the major questions and nondelegation, what bite it would have in that case.
He wants to know if congress has that right to delegate such power at all in any statute. This is a swing for the fences on the nondelegation clause, which basically says Congress can’t delegate it’s constitutional powers at all.
Gorsuch then asked:
You’re saying there’s inherent authority in foreign affairs, all foreign affairs, so regulate commerce, duties, tariffs, and war. It’s inherent authority all the way down, you say. Fine. Congress decides tomorrow, well, we’re tired of this legislating business. We’re just going to hand it all off to the President. What would stop Congress from doing that?
Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch
Counsel Sauer argued that this would be too far. That congress can delegate within certain parameters, they can’t just give it away entirely.
Gorsuch then asked:
Okay. You emphasize that Congress can always take back its powers. You mentioned that a couple of times. But don’t we have a serious retrieval problem here because, once Congress delegates by a bare majority and the President signs it—and, of course, every president will sign a law that gives him more authority—Congress can’t take that back without a super majority. And even—you know, even then, it’s going to be veto-proof. What president’s ever going to give that power back? A pretty rare president. So how should that inform our view of delegations and major questions?
The reason justice Gorsuch argues they’d need a super majority, is because presidents love power. Any attempt to change the law, even if it passed the house and senate, would likely get vetoed by any president who wanted to exploit it. So there would then need a super majority to overcome a presidential veto if congress tried to take back some of IEEPA’s delegated powers.
Gorsuch is playing 3D chess over here.
Sauer conceded this point, but essentially argued it’s not impossible. Especially if the sitting president agrees with the change they’re trying to make, even at the expense of their own power. He cites in 2023 where congress ended the 2020 declaration from Trump that COVID was an emergency, and Biden signed it.
It’s not a horrid example, but it’s not a great one, either. COVID was no longer a pandemic, and if Biden had tried to exercise some huge authority to combat COVID at that point, it would have been political suicide. So no reason not to let that one go, from Biden’s perspective.
Gorsuch snuck in another principle on him when he asked if all tariffs were foreign affairs. I think the heart of this question is to determine if there’s some conflict between a president’s job in foreign affairs versus congress’ job in levying taxes.
Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch
Sauer agreed they largely are, while arguing that there’s a spectrum, so to speak, and that regulatory tariffs are more foreign affairs related, and revenue raising tariffs are more domestic policy, and that was the end of that.
Justice Kavanaugh wanted to know, why haven’t any other previous presidents, since IEEPA was enacted, used it for tariffs.
Counsel Sauer said they reviewed 69 emergencies. (Side note: I think Sauer just had a prop bet with his buddies at the firm to see if he could sneak in saying 69 during oral arguments.) None of them were really the kind of emergency a tariff would solve, in his estimation, as opposed to this trade deficit “emergency,” which seems well-suited for tariffs.
Justice Barrett asked Sauer to elaborate on Gorsuch’s question about getting power back. You see, the 2023 example was a case where COVID was clearly no longer an emergency, so Biden had no reason to continue it.
But in this case, Barrett is saying, if we had a president who was relying on IEEPA like President Trump is, surely you understand congress could never get him to sign a law banning him from using it the way he wants to use it, right?
He largely seemed to not want to argue against this, without conceding, since it doesn’t help him.
Then justice Barrett asked about why Trump needed to attach so many tariffs to so many countries, including many who are our friends like Spain and France.
Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett
He answered by saying they’re so broad, because the emergency is so broad. He didn’t cite any data to support this, I guess we’re just supposed to take Trump’s word on it.
The Arguments: The Petitioners – Learning Resources Inc. (and other Private Parties)
Up next is Counsel Neal Kumar Katyal, who opened with this.
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: Tariffs are taxes. They take dollars from Americans’ pockets and deposit them in the U.S. Treasury. Our founders gave that taxing power to Congress alone. Yet, here, the President bypassed Congress and imposed one of the largest tax increases in our lifetimes.
Many doctrines explain why this is illegal, like the presumption that Congress speaks clearly when it imposes taxes and duties and the major questions doctrine.
But it comes down to common sense.
It’s simply implausible that in enacting IEEPA Congress handed the President the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the American economy in the process, allowing him to set and reset tariffs on any and every product from any and every country at any and all times.
And, as Justices Gorsuch and Barrett just said, this is a one-way ratchet. We will never get this power back if the government wins this case. What president wouldn’t veto legislation to rein this power in and pull out the tariff power?
IEEPA is a sanction statute. It’s not a tax statute where Congress gave away the store. Congress knows exactly how to delegate its tariff powers. Every time for 238 years, it’s done so explicitly, always with real limits.
IEEPA looks nothing like those laws. It uses “regulate,” which Congress has used hundreds of times, never once to include tariffs. And it lacks the limits of every other tariff statute. And that is why, even though presidents have used IEEPA to impose economic sanctions thousands of times, no president in IEEPA’s 50-year lifetime has ever tried to impose tariffs.
Neal Kumar Katyal
And the President bypassed statutes that do address tariffs, like Section 122 for large and serious trade deficits, but that imposes a clear guardrail, 15 percent cap, 150-day limit. This is Youngstown at its lowest ebb. If the government wins, another president could declare a climate emergency and impose huge tariffs without fines without floors or ceilings, as Justice Gorsuch said. My friend’s answer?
This administration would declare it a hoax. The next president may not quite say that. This is an open-ended power to junk the tariff laws and is certainly not conveyed by the word “regulate.” I welcome the Court’s questions.
Justice Thomas asked about how embargoes are somehow OK, but tariffs aren’t.
Counsel Katyal advised that tariffs are taxes, they raise revenue. Embargos are a hard stop in trade altogether. Maybe they have similar goals, but very different actions.
Justice Roberts was up next, and asked about the fact that tariffs are foreign facing, and that foreign affairs is the purview of the president, not congress. So should they support Trump’s case here?
Counsel Katyal agreed with most of that, but stated that the constitution never gave the executive the power to raise revenue, even while at war. He then quoted Justice Robert Jackson from a 1952 case, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, where President Truman, in order to fend of a labor union strike he felt would create a national emergency, attempted to seize control of the nation’s steel mills. In a 6-3 loss, Truman was advised to go fuck himself.
In that opinion, Justice Jackson said,
Emergency powers tend to kindle emergencies, so it’s essential the public may know the extent and limitations of the powers that can be asserted and persons affected may be informed from the statute of its rights and duties.
His point being, we can’t just let the president declare an emergency, and then citing that emergency, do whatever the fuck he wants. Otherwise, every president will declare everything an emergency, then do whatever the fuck they want. As an example? Donald J. Trump, and his bullshit “emergency” tariffs.
Justice Kavanaugh wanted to understand if Katyal agreed that if congress had specifically said the president could issue tariffs in IEEPA, that it’s constitutionally permissible.
Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Counsel Katyal agreed, assuming there are limits that are clearly defined.
He didn’t agree that president could just put a 300% tariff on someone and call it an emergency, for fuck’s sake.
He pointed out that Trump imposed a 39% tariff on Switzerland, and not only are they an ally, they actually buy more goods from us than we do from them. So how the fuck does that make sense as a trade emergency?
Justice Alito, seeming skeptical of Katyal’s argument asked, “What if Congress told the president to regulate parks. A park is particularly busy. So could the president have them charge an admission fee to reduce visitor counts?
He said, if it raises a fee, then no. Congress needs to explicitly give him that power.
Alito then went on to show the power of logic has left him by asking an inane question. He asked, what if they’re not revenue raising tariffs? His example was, a tariff is enacted but not imposed until 90 days if the country doesn’t comply. So if they do, no tariff is collected.
How the fuck does that work? He’s asking if it’s OK as long as no one ever violates it? That’s fucking stupid. I hate to be disrespectful to Alito, I’ve been there where I couldn’t come up with a great example, but still, it’s a pretty nonsensical question.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito
Counsel Katyal pointed out that Trump’s brief, and statements publicly suggest it’d raise 4 trillion smackaroos. I’d call that revenue.
He went on to point out, that if the president is saying a trade imbalance is an emergency, then he can enforce quotas, which would be more precise than tariffs.
So I know you were thinking I was overreaching by saying Alito was getting inane in his arguments, but folks, he wasn’t done. He then asked this:
You say that these executive orders do not address an unusual and extraordinary threat. I understand that argument. Suppose that the facts were that there was an imminent threat of war, not a declared war but an imminent threat of war with a very powerful enemy whose economy was heavily dependent on U.S. trade. Could a president under this provision impose a tariff as a way of trying to stave off that war, or would you say, no, the president lacks that power under this provision?
What the fuck is he even talking about? How does this scenario make any sense? For the love of God, Alito is losing it. I don’t know if this is just him really trying to support Trump, or if he’s losing his marbles, but Alito is compromised, man.
How the fuck could it be that an enemy of the US is about to go to war with us, but they sell goods to us, and so we impose a tariff against them, and that somehow gets them to like us more and not start a war? For fuck’s sake, if this hypothetical were true, an embargo would be the only fucking lever you’d pull. This is insane, from Alito.
Katyal again pointed out that the things IEEPA specifically gives him the authority to do aren’t raising revenue, where tariffs do.
He then hit Alito with a compelling and accurate response, IMO. He said:
If you ruled for us and the president says, I need this power, he could go across the street to Congress tomorrow and get it by a simple majority through reconciliation. But, if you vote for them, this power, as Justice Gorsuch said, as Justice Barrett said, is going to be stuck with us forever.
Neal Kumar Katyal
He’s absolutely right here. Again, the president is unlikely to sign a statute congress passes, which takes power away he wants to exploit from him. So they’d need a veto-proof majority. Therefore, getting congress to give him that power explicitly, is the more logical path.
In a response to a question from Justice Thomas who wanted to know if the president could impose tariffs as a means of getting a country to free an American hostage.
Katyal said, “The President is seeking the power to set aside all of our trade treaties unilaterally under the word “regulate.” I just don’t think it can bear that weight.”
Justice Alito went on to ask about other statutes that authorize tariffs, seemingly addressing the constitutional issue. But Katyal responded:
That’s something that can be decided by other courts at other times. As these folks come to the Court, as the government comes to the Court today, they’re citing one statute and one statute only, IEEPA, and we submit to you it doesn’t come even close to authorizing these worldwide tariffs that they’re seeking today.
This suggests he’s not really raising the constitutional nondelegation issue at all.
In a particularly feisty exchange with Justice Kavanaugh about previous times presidents imposed tariffs, Katyal points out that in all those other instances, the statutes which gave the president the authority to impose tariffs, there were clearly outlined limitations. Essentially, that congress would never give the president the limitless power to tariff, and if they did, surely they’d say so. So the lack of limits suggest, they weren’t intending for the president to be able to do that, because they’re always worried about that fucker going crazy.
Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Justice Barrett asked if he agreed, since licensing is outlined in IEEPA, could the president impost a licensing fee?
Counsel Katyal said:
Not a fee. So I should have said this earlier, but license is different from a licensing fee. IEEPA and TWEA authorize licenses, not license fees. And no president has ever charged, to my knowledge, fees under those two statutes for the licenses. So fee is impermissible. License is okay.
He then again specified that if there was a licensing fee to cover costs of the licensing, that might be OK, because it’s not revenue raising. But Trump pointed out he expects the tariffs to raise 4 trillion dollars.
Justice Barrett asked about refunds, if Katyal were to win, of all the tariffs already collected.
When this case started, Katyal’s side asked for an injunction on the tariffs, because if Katyal’s side wins, refunding those tariffs could be quite the fucking mess.
But the government responded like this.
They then said, that refunds would be easy-peasy if they lose, so no reason to put a pause on them.
But now that they’re here in court, they’re acting like the refunds would be a huge burden, and therefore that’s why they should win. So that’s surely hypocritical.
The Arguments: The Petitioners (The States)
Last up is Solicitor General for Oregon, Benjamin Gutman who simply opened by saying IEEPA licenses never were fees. It was just a way to carve an exemptions for humanitarian reasons, or something like that. Clearly not revenue raising.
So an argument you’ve heard from the president and his peeps, was also put forward by Justice Kavanaugh. He asked, how the fuck could it make sense that the president could launch an embargo, which shuts down trade entirely, but a 1% tariff is somehow a problem. Sure one is a more major act than the other.
Deputy Attorney General of Oregon, Benjamin Gutman
I’d argue that tariffs are taxes on the American people, embargos just stop the trade altogether. But it doesn’t inherently cost the people any money.
But Gutman just argued that there’s never been another time where “regulate” on it’s own, was used to justify tariffs. All other instances, they used language to suggest revenue-raising efforts were allowed.
He went on to clarify to Justices Kavanaugh, Kagan, and Jackson, who all asked the same question in a roundabout way, that the reason they are different, is that with tariffs, there’s something in it for the government. For embargos, there isn’t. Sure, maybe a 1% tariff is less impactful than an embargo, but still, the government doesn’t benefit from an embargo, and the president doesn’t now have a new source of revenue to potentially exploit.
Justice Jackson, seemingly arguing for SG Gutman instead of questioning him responded:
And it would make perfect sense, I think, in a time of emergency for many of the reasons that General Sauer pointed out that Congress would want the President to have the kind of authority that is imposed when you are embargoing things, when you are stopping the trade, when you are saying, you know, for emergency reasons we’re not letting any of this product come in. I mean, sure, that’s a big deal, but the nature of it makes sense in terms of an emergency. I think what you’re saying is that the idea that the government would use its authority to be raising revenues in this situation is a different kind of power.
Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
Gutman agreed.
Justice Kavanaugh, lacking imagination, again argued that it seems nonsensical that a president could do an embargo, but not a small tariff.
The problem with this argument, and the reason I say he lacks imagination, is that the law doesn’t just allow embargos. It allows licenses and quotas, too. So Kavanaugh is ignoring the other tools that are there, to make this ridiculous false dichotomy argument that it’s the nuclear option or nothing, when it absolutely isn’t.
Counsel Gutman agreed with me.
Justice Sotomayor took the gloves off and attacked the president’s pettiness by pointing out the 10% he put on Canada because it hurt his feelings that it ran an ad about tariffs, and a 40% tax on Brazil because they prosecuted a friend of his. So this is why those powers must be restrained.
The Arguments: Respondent’s Rebuttal
Counsel Sauer had one final chance to rebut the other two, and so he went on a long diatribe, talking about how the tariffs did bring some countries to the negotiating table, and therefore they achieved the goals of resolving the emergency Trump declared under IEEPA.
The problem with this, is again, it lacks imagination. Trump didn’t try an embargo, but I’m sure that would have worked as well. Trump didn’t try quotas, but that could have also been effective. Like Kavanaugh, he made a false dichotomy argument, as if somehow tariffs were the only effective option.
The Opinion of the Court
Alrighty, place your bets, folks.
And the winner is…drumroll…Learning Resources Inc. et al., thanks to Justices Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Barrett, Gorsuch, and Jackson.
So listen, there are no less than six fucking opinions on this ruling, and I’m not going to cover all of them entirely, but the one that matters is from the chief, himself.
He wrote:
Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA—“regulate” and “importation”—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.
Chief Justice John Roberts
He argues that the tariffs Trump imposed were so limitless, that clearly a tacit reference to regulate imports couldn’t have allowed for something so impactful, especially during peacetime.
He continued that SCOTUS rarely allows the president to exercise power that isn’t explicitly and clearly granted to him by statute. He also reiterates Katyal’s argument that when congress does give such powers to the president, it does so with limits and guidelines—certainly not just saying the executive can regulate imports, and nothing else.
He then wrote:
Against this backdrop of clear and limited delegations, the Government reads IEEPA to give the President power to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs.
On this reading, moreover, the President is unconstrained by the significant procedural limitations in other tariff statutes and free to issue a dizzying array of modifications at will. All it takes to unlock that extraordinary power is a Presidential declaration of emergency, which the Government asserts is unreviewable. And the only way of restraining the exercise of that power is a veto-proof majority in Congress.
That view, if credited, would represent a transformative expansion of the President’s authority over tariff policy, and indeed—as demonstrated by the exercise of that authority in this case—over the broader economy as well.
It would replace the longstanding executive-legislative collaboration over trade policy with unchecked Presidential policymaking. Congress seldom effects such sea changes through “vague language.”
Justice Roberts also cited that there was no other time IEEPA was used to impose tariffs, as was discussed at length during oral arguments, and pointed to other statutes that had been used by presidents to impose tariffs. I believe he was pointing out that other statutes have limits, guardrails, etc., which is the likely reason Trump didn’t use them—he wants the power to change them on whims.
He also argued that the sheer magnitude of what Trump had done, should give the courts pause. They should really consider whether congress clearly meant to infer such power. Since it’s not even mentioned IEEPA—safe to say they didn’t.
2025-2026 Supreme Court of the United States
He then addressed the “emergencies beget emergencies” concern, with which he agreed.
Trump’s side tried to argue that in times of emergency, the president needs broad sweeping powers to act. Instead, Justice Roberts suggested that in times of emergency, when the president is executing emergency powers, the courts should be increasingly skeptical, and require clear, inarguable authority powers were granted, not a single word, like “regulate,” that could just as easily be argued didn’t mean what the president says it means, such as in this case.
He then said, in a shot across the bow of Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh, who usually side with the major questions doctrine, but carved out an exception here:
There is no major questions exception to the major questions doctrine.
The dissent’s argument was that because the constitution gives the president dominion over foreign affairs, and tariffs are arguably foreign affairs, that somehow this means the major questions doctrine wouldn’t apply.
However, tariffs are paid for by American’s, no matter what Trump’s team tries to argue. Imported goods show up in America, and tariffs are paid for by the American companies who bought them, and then that expense is baked into the price that American consumers pay for them. So while there’s a foreign affairs component to it, the goal of tariffs isn’t to prevent people from exporting to the US, it’s to get Americans to stop buying imports, and that is not a foreign affairs issue, that’s a “government picking winners and losers in a free market” issue.
In his concurring, but separate opinion, Neil Gorsuch wrote this, and I think it’s so good, I’m going to post it without edit.
Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch
For those who think it important for the Nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today’s decision will be disappointing.
All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason.
Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design.
Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions.
And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day.
In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the Nation’s future. For some today, the weight of those virtues is apparent. For others, it may not seem so obvious.
But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today’s result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ~ 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
Nothing seems to evoke more passion from either side of the political aisle than the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution. People on the Individual-Right side of the fence often cite the “shall not be infringed” clause, but those who wish to limit or eliminate the individual right to bear arms often cite the “well-regulated militia” clause.
Former ACLU Leader and Mathematics Professor Ira Glasser
The anti-individual-right argument being that the framers meant for Americans to be able to form militias to protect the people or the country, and those militias would need to be armed. This sentiment has been echoed by such noteworthy Civil Rights leaders as former ACLU head and mathematics professor Ira Glasser, which he discussed at length during the March 2nd, 2018 Comedy Cellar podcast. (click to listen)
NYC Comedy Cellar
Side Note: Don’t be fooled that the podcast is from the Comedy Cellar. Owner Noam Dworman is quite fond of discussing politics, and is incredibly thoughtful, fair, and insightful on the subject.
Oddly, the person who got it right (IMO), contradicting Ira Glasser, was Noam’s co-host, comedian Dan Naturman, who often describes himself as left-leaning. Dan does possess a law degree from Fordham University, and Noam studied law at the University of Pennsylvania, making them the only people trained in law involved in the discussion, not Glasser.
While Noam Dworman tends to seem centerist, he understandably felt the need to defer to Glasser’s judgement, since his work with the ACLU would seem to assert Glasser would be the more knowledgeable person in the room—but on this issue, he just wasn’t.
Comedian Dan NaturmanThe argument the anti-individual-right group presents seems pretty sound on the face of it, but there are several flaws with this line of thinking, making it unarguably incorrect.
But let’s break down the flaws of these arguments one by one.
THE CONTRADICTION
The first issue is that it is entirely contradictory with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights was drafted, not as a set of laws for the people to heed, but instead, limits set on government as to how government may restrict the people’s individual rights.
The Bill of Rights Institute writes:
The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties.
So if the 2nd Amendment was drafted to allow the establishment of militias, and was not meant as an individual right, it would be inconsistent with the other nine amendments.
Our founding fathers believed you have inalienable rights by virtue of existing, and they cannot be taken from you. They don’t come from government at all—the founders of our country were very clear on that when they wrote the Declaration of Independence.
The Bill of Rights places limits on what government may do, not establishes the formation of government entities. Those things are laid out in the first portion of the Constitution. But it also is written with the intention that the power comes from the people, not government.
The 1st Amendment
For instance, our first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” versus something like “You are free to practice any religion of your choosing.”
This pattern is consistent throughout the Bill Of Rights, and while most see both those phrases as essentially the same, there’s an incredibly important distinction. As the Bill of Rights are written, the people have the power and are imposing a limit on the government’s ability to limit their religious freedom. In the second theoretical example, it implies government has the power and is granting religious rights to the people.
So now that we understand the Bill of Rights (it’s in the name, for Pete’s sake) establishes rights of the people, not of government, and thus contradicts the idea that the 2nd amendment was meant to help local militias to form, let’s move on to issue #2.
THE MEANING OF THE WORD MILITIA
The meaning behind the word “militia” in the second amendment.
If we assume the term “militia” refers to local military and police, which are government entities after all; the people arguing the 2nd amendment was set up to allow local governments to establish militias comprised of the people believe our forefathers wrote an amendment that says that government cannot infringe on government’s rights to bear arms. This is not only inconsistent to the rest of the Bill of Rights, which guarantee individual rights, but its redundancy is nonsensical. If government cannot infringe on government’s rights to carry guns, then there would be no reason to even mention it in the first place.
The militia clause does refer to government, but not just local governments, it means any government. It wasn’t a right of the militia, it was a limit on it. This will make more sense as we move on to the next issues.
THE MEANING OF THE WORD REGULATED
The third important issue people get wrong with this, is believing “well-regulated” is synonymous with “well-organized.”
The last issue with the anti-individual-right argument is what it argues is being protected. The incorrect argument is that it’s protecting a country (state) which is free. But the reality is it is protecting freedom itself, ensuring the state remain free. You’d have to deny nearly all of America’s founding history to believe that freedom wasn’t at the core of everything the founding fathers did. Freedom was always more important in their minds. Far more important than the state.
ANOTHER WAY TO WRITE IT
With all that in mind, let me reword the amendment in the way it was intended using language that is maybe more understandable in today’s vernacular.
In order for the people of the United States to remain free, the militia shall be kept under control by the people of the United States who have the right to keep and bear arms.
This is precisely how the amendment was intended, and the only interpretation of it which cannot be easily challenged.
They knew government will always be prone to becoming bloated and oppressive. And while a government can pass a million laws, those laws have no teeth if there is no militia to enforce them. So in order to keep that government, specifically its enforcement wing (the militia) well-regulated, the people should be armed as well. This way, the government (and militia) always have some level of fear from the people. It’s the only reason to use the word “regulated” that makes sense.
The United States Supreme Court in 2008 with District of Columbia v. Heller held it is an individual right saying the following:
This opinion, being current precedent, effectively settles the argument for now.
IS THIS IDEA OF THE GOVERNMENT FEARING THE PEOPLE EVEN REALISTIC NOW?
Since the United States Military is infinitely more powerful than its armed citizens, many argue the point becomes moot, since we “the people” couldn’t possibly fight them. Which in a narrow scope might seem accurate, but again, if you apply a little skepticism, it isn’t.
But, they’re still given orders by an elected government. When the military kills the citizens, it usually isn’t well-received by the people who voted for them, threatening their re-electability.
It’s also important to remember ours is a voluntary military comprised of the people, and thus aren’t likely to murder their brothers and sisters for no good cause.
So why do gun control advocates believe this is what the 2nd amendment implies? It’s likely a simple case of confirmation bias—a phenomenon whereby someone attempting to prove something they hope to be true/false, eschew interpretations that conflict with their bias and/or accept suspect data that supports their bias, due to an inner desire to substantiate their argument.
We are all prone to do this, and with the exception of devout skeptics like myself, we’ll rarely even know we’re doing it, nor act to correct it.
Their lives were forever changed because of gun violence, so it’s quite reasonable to assume they would advocate limiting our right to bear arms. And when people have been forever affected by senseless gun violence, it behooves all of us to respect their trepidation in respect to lax gun laws. We haven’t walked a mile in their shoes.
But apologies to those who wish to limit our rights to bear arms, and believe the “militia” clause supports your argument. If you want to argue against gun rights, using the “militia” argument, it just isn’t consistent with the rest of the Constitution, and you’re unfortunately misinterpreting the clause.
If you’re a limited-government advocate, you’re almost guaranteed to be a detractor of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) colloquially known as Obamacare. The AHCA from the GOP designed to replace the ACA, has recently been passed by the House, but is largely believed to not have a chance in the Senate.
President Barack Obama delivers a health care address to a joint session of Congress at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C., Sept. 9, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)
If you’re old enough to recall the Clinton presidency, you may remember that Hillary Clinton was appointed by her husband Bill to the “Task Force on National Health Care Reform.” Her mission was to improve the state of health care in the United States, and her suggestion was a single-payer system similar to what many nations in Europe and Canada use.
This single-payer system was originally supported by President Obama as well, prior to becoming president. But the political climate in America is still one of limited government more often than not, so the ACA was a compromise Obama was willing to make to achieve his goal of every American having “basic access to health care.”
The bill being one of the larger in American history had a lot to it, and as such, had a lot of things people from many places on the political spectrum took issue with.
Supreme Court of the United States Chief Justice John Roberts
Many libertarians like myself, are left wondering why government should be involved in health care in the first place. I think our position is pretty consistent and straight forward, although I always cringe at the idea of speaking for other people. But I will try to state the libertarian position as I’ve consistently observed it.
Health Care is not a Right
The argument from those pushing for government-funded health care is the idea that it’s a right—some going so far as to say it’s an extension of your right to life. But let’s break that down for a second, as it depends on how you define rights in general.
The Constitution doesn’t mention health care, so there’s no honest metric one could use to say it’s a Constitutional right. However, most argue that it’s a basic human right.
The United States Constitution
If we compare health care to other well-understood basic human rights, it becomes fairly easy to understand how healthcare is different. Religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom in general, life, air, etc., these things all have one thing in common. They do not require any action from another person.
Rights by definition, should not involve the action of another person, because otherwise, your right to have their labor or goods trumps their right to keep their labor or goods—therefore one person ends up having more rights than another.
Healthcare requires goods produced by the pharmaceutical industry and medical equipment from manufacturing companies, as well as the efforts of a medical practitioner like a doctor or nurse, it isn’t just something that exists in the ether for all to consume.
If we force those people to do such work through laws like EMTALA, which require emergency rooms to treat people, regardless of their ability to pay, this arguably violates the 13th amendment which states:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Making a doctor save someone’s life versus giving them the option, even if they get paid to do so, is both immoral and potentially unconstitutional.
A quick internet search yielded no instance where SCOTUS has granted certiorari (agreed to hear) any petition challenging EMTALA, although the 11th Circuit upheld the law in BAKER COUNTY MEDICAL SERVICES INC v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, August 2014, The challenge there was not against the 13th amendment, it was against the 5th, which reads as follows. (The bold portion was what the challenge argued against.)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The reason the law was upheld, is because the law only applies to hospitals which voluntarily work with Medicare. So the court ruled that their participation was voluntary, while the plaintiffs argued not taking Medicare is an undue financial burden, and therefore not really a choice. (Almost all hospitals accept medicare, because they’d have a hard time making a profit if they rejected all those who are on it). Government often gets so involved, that they create the problem by virtue of their intrusiveness in the marketplace.
The Supreme Court Of The United States
Moving past EMTALA, if we assume that the doctors help someone voluntarily, and expect to get paid by government, then the second issue arises that the taxpayer and/or fellow healthcare consumers, end up footing the bill.
What logical argument can one make to indicate that person A is responsible for person B? While it’s certainly altruistic in its intent, and I understand the idea that if we all band together to help those in need, society is potentially better off because of it; that’s still a moral judgement you’re making that others may not share with you.
There’s also a rather large hypocrisy in play for these beliefs. Speaking to a doctor who promotes a single-payer system, my argument was that at some point, that doctor expects to retire. While my taxes help pay for health care, my dollars don’t cure anyone. My dollars pay a doctor who then cures someone.
So if a doctor chooses to take a day off, or retire, they have opted to not help someone who could have used help. If I were to tell those doctors that now the government gets to dictate how many hours they work, and what time they may take off, they’d be apoplectic. Yet I do not get to choose how much of my paycheck funds the health care of another.
Much like mass and energy are interchangeable because one can be transformed into the other, so are labor and money for the same reason. Forcing someone to give up their money to pay for services they’re not receiving is no more moral than forcing them into servitude for the same purpose.
As much as it may seem heartless not to do it, you cannot divorce that fact from the equation.
This brings me to the “are you just going to let them die” argument, that is often bandied about as justification for forced medical care.
The number of visits to a doctor that are life threatening vs just quality of life issues are very small. Even Emergency Room visits, according to one government study puts the number of visits that could have been treated by a normal doctor or Urgent Care facility vs the emergency room at somewhere between 13.7 and 27.1%. That doesn’t include all the times people just went to their doctor, or an Urgent Care facility. So it is more than fair to assume that less that 10%, maybe even less than 1% of all medical care required is non-life-threatening.
If that’s true, then most of the time care may be refused, it is not about letting someone die at all.
But also, if we go back to labor and money are interchangeable, arguing that myself or anyone else is “just letting someone die” assumes that we owe them their life. Which again means that the government would get to decide when a doctor may retire or otherwise not work.
Waiting in Emergency department
While it’s easy for those of us who aren’t medical doctors to sit at home, and say “someone should help those people” (referring to those who can’t afford to pay for health care), the fact is that any government requirement for them to be helped requires violating the actual enumerated constitutional rights and largely accepted human rights of a number of people, in order to preserve a non-enumerated right of one person.
If you want to help people, you should volunteer to help. Go to school to learn medicine, and do the good deeds you want done. But the moment it becomes compulsory for you or anyone else, it is no longer moral.
With the number of charities that were doing great work to help the less fortunate before laws like this were passed, the idea that such people didn’t get help, is misguided. While there were some people who did not receive care, there were a good number who did. But more importantly to libertarians like me, liberty remained in tact, and not one right was violated.
In December 2014, The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case Heien v. North Carolina. You can click on the link to read the entirety of the case if interested, but I’ll give you fairly brief synopsis here.
In 2010, a man named Maynor Vasquez was pulled over by police for having one of his two brake lights inoperative. Police observed his friend, Nicholas Heien sleeping in the back seat of the car. Thinking this behavior seemed a little odd, police fairly asked if they could search the car, and were given permission to do so.
Official Portrait of United States Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor Click for Biography
Upon the search, they discovered 54 grams of cocaine in the vehicle, then arrested and convicted Heien of two counts of trafficking, presumably due to the amount larger than one person’s normal usage.
Heien’s lawyer challenged the traffic stop as North Carolina law only requires you have a working brake light, not both of them. As such, council argued the police stopping Vasquez and Heien constituted an illegal stop, and the search was therefore the proverbial “fruit of the poisonous tree,” and should have been thrown out.
Eventually, certiorari was granted, and SCOTUS heard the case in 2014. The court ruled against Heien in an 8:1 decision—Sotomayor being the only dissenter.
During oral arguments, Sotomayor asked the petitioner:
(You can click below for the entire oral arguments transcript)
It’s fairly common knowledge, that SCOTUS at that time was comprised of what most considered five right-leaning justices, and four left-leaning. Sotomayor being one of the left—as she was appointed by Obama.
The issue at hand was whether Heien’s Constitutional rights were violated by a search under the Fourth Amendment which reads:
“[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
While it is often believed that the left-leaning justices don’t often seem too concerned with the Constitution, if you listen to oral arguments long enough, you start to see both sides indeed heavily use the constitution for the basis of their arguments.
Justice Antonin Scalia 1960-2016
What’s often the case however, is that some are absolutists, and use the constitution strictly as it’s written.
However, other justices try to interpret what was intended when the Constitution or its amendments were written, instead of interpreting it solely by its verbiage—referring to the Constitution as a living document. Most notably, former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote this piece explaining his ideals.
United States Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist 1924-2005
This “Living Document” idea also means that they often try to modernize the Constitution in such a way as to essentially say, “If the framers knew what we know today, this is what they’d have written or done.”
Scalia (and I agree wholeheartedly) would argue that it is for congress to rewrite the Constitution through the amendment process, and that the “Living Constitution” concept is nothing less than legislating from the bench—blurring the lines of the separation of powers intended by creating the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches.
But nonetheless, Justice Sotomayor’s lone dissent, was clearly the only decision made with the Constitution in mind as written, almost stunningly not echoed by the late Justice Scalia and other conservative justices.
The United States Constitution
In today’s highly politicized society, we often wish to assume that partisan’s, including justices, are always on the side of their party, but every once in a while, you will find an ally in the most unlikely places, and on this particular issue, the only ally to liberty was Justice Sotomayor, recognizing that you cannot allow police to search someone’s car under a false pretense, and then allow prosecution to proceed accordingly.
I’m often pretty outspoken in my disdain for any politician who is consistently on the wrong side of liberty, but I’ve always said I worship ideals, not people. I just give people credit where it’s due, and attack when I believe it’s warranted. On this day, Justice Sotomayor was right, and she should be commended for it.
Unless you avoid the news at all costs, you’re fully aware of the shootings by police, killing two black citizens, Alton Sterling and Philano Castile, both under highly questionable circumstances.
Alton Sterling (Left), and Philando Castile (right)
Then Army reservist/Afghan war veteran Micah Xavier Johnson, so enraged by such shootings, murdered several police officers in Dallas in retaliation.
There can be no doubt, that tensions between the governed and the government are at levels that are bordering the animosity that triggered us to war for independence against Great Britain 240 years ago. But how did we get here, and how do we get out?
Facts versus Headlines
It’s fair to say that the media push narratives that get ratings. But while according to the FBI in 2014, most black and white people are killed by people of their own race—89% for the black community, and 82% for the white, they often push a narrative that a young black man is more likely to be killed by a white cop.
There were a total of 444 police shootings deemed justifiable homicide, by police in 2014. Pointing out those deemed justifiable homicide is important to the story, because the concern is that police aren’t prosecuted for such shootings. So for police not to be prosecuted, it means the shooting was deemed justifiable.
The FBI didn’t break them down by race, but even if they were all white cops shooting black victims, which they certainly aren’t, that’s still four times less than the 2,205 black-on-black murders in the same year, or the 2,488 white-on-white murders.
Let’s be clear about that statistic, though. It has little to do with living in violent communities, a narrative that is often asserted. The first clue is that white-on-white murders are very similar.
It actually has to do with people being four times as likely to be killed by someone they simply knew.
See this table from the FBI, also in 2014, which shows that 43% of the time people were killed by an acquaintance or family, compared to 11.5% by strangers. The rest are unknown, but since the dataset is somewhat large, we should reasonably assume that nearly 4:1 ratio would be true for the unknowns as well.
The Attitude Adjustment
We need to change the way we interact with each other.
The police were hired to protect our rights. If one pulls you over or otherwise interacts with you, remember that this person is potentially willing to die for you—treat them accordingly. A little compassion for police who do such a dangerous job would go a long way to improve the exchange you have with that officer.
Credit: inhauscreative Vetta Getty Images
But as always, it takes two to tango.
Police are trained to fear the worst and prepare for it in each interaction they have with the public. The most innocent traffic stop could be their last.
But preparing for the worst doesn’t excuse assuming the worst, nor treating them as if they’re the worst. If police want people to respect them, they must first show citizens the same respect they expect from them. If an officer didn’t specifically witness a citizen harming someone, they are innocent until proven guilty—it’s an officer’s duty to act accordingly.
Blame Legislators Versus The Police Where Appropriate
Whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat (libertarians already generally know this), when you try to socially engineer society by passing victimless crimes, you cause police to have to enforce those crimes—requiring more police.
This puts both police and citizens in harm’s way; increasing the odds of violent interactions between the two parties.
Drugs, prostitution, blue laws, and other such victimless legislation which protect no one—yet risk many, are a huge part of the problem.
If you support passing a law, then you must be comfortable with the notion of putting a gun to the offender’s head and killing them yourself if they violate it. If you’re uncomfortable with this thought, then it’s pure hypocrisy to put police in the situation where they may have to do so in your name.
For instance, if your neighbor were smoking marijuana, would you walk next door, put a gun to their head and tell them to stop or you’ll kill them? Of course not. But if that same neighbor were raping a child, I suspect you’d feel quite differently. This is bad legislation versus good in a nutshell.
If we want to reduce senseless violence, we must first elect someone looking to undo all the senseless laws we’ve passed which trigger senseless violence. Then be sure they don’t pass new ones going forward.
Respect the Constitution
I’m in a state where concealed carry requires a permit. So this means I open carry when walking my dog at night, because I haven’t taken the course and applied for that license. I carry in case I get accosted by a miscreant. In so doing, I often worry I might get accosted by the police.
The current scenario is that if a busy-body citizen calls police to report me walking down the street carrying a gun, the police must investigate. They do this because we’ve allowed a litigious culture where police can be held liable for not investigating.
What should happen however is that the police should respond to the caller with, “Carrying a gun is every American’s right. Does he/she appear to be committing a crime? If not, there’s nothing for us to investigate.”
This may seem wrong at first, but the police would do this if you reported someone just driving a car down the street. Driving a car and carrying a gun are both perfectly legal actions that have an intrinsic danger if done so irresponsibly or maliciously. So while at first it may seem like a horrid analogy, they are almost exactly the same.
The reason it feels wrong is simple conditioning by anti-gun people who deem gun carriers as a threat, despite the fact everyone is a threat in some way, and gun carriers aren’t any more likely to harm someone. Most are responsible citizens exercising their 2nd amendment rights just as all of us exercise our 1st.
We then need to pass serious tort reform to preventing civil action against police who don’t investigate someone carrying a gun, on the off chance that person actually harms someone.
Better Community Outreach via Police Training
This proposal is a bit novel and controversial, and I admit it may have unintended consequences. But I like blue skies thinking, so I’ll propose it anyway just to get some creative juices flowing.
Much like we have food stamps to help the needy eat, I think police could use confiscated weapons that are normally destroyed, and start a program with impoverished citizens in bad neighborhoods to protect themselves by donating these weapons and giving classes on how to use them properly.
Of course those citizens would be screened properly for criminal backgrounds like they would for a gun purchase. And yes, it is possible one of those guns may be used in a crime later. But it’s also highly possible that those guns may save many lives of people too poor to buy one themselves, yet absolutely may need one as a result of living in a high crime area.
If every good citizen were armed, and prepared to defend themselves against a would-be criminal, we’d have a lot less would-be criminals.
Criminal prey on the weak, but it’s hard to call anyone packing heat, weak. Guns are the greatest equalizer mankind has every invented, turning a feeble grandmother into a Chuck Norris level threat.
Police Need To Eschew The Brotherhood Mentality
Being a Corvette owner, we tend to recognize each other—so much so, that nearly all of us wave at another Corvette owner driving past. Motorcyclists do this too. If you were from Boston, visiting California, and overhear the person next to you say he just “Pahked the Cah,” you’ll almost certainly strike up a conversation with him.
This is because people are hard-wired to bond with those they share commonalities with—it strengthens societal bonds. The easiest way to do this, is to bond over a unique common interest or trait. I say “unique,” because if you were both in Boston, you’d pay the same person no attention whatsoever.
Police know that their work is dangerous, so they form strong bonds among one another so they can be confident they’d have the other’s back, even if they don’t personally know each other—it’s a very natural phenomenon.
But they should be taught that this is a natural emotion, and that they should avoid following it blindly. Much like the placebo effect, while it’s natural, it can do far more harm than good if all skepticism is eschewed.
Violent Crime Rate comparison between general population UCR data and law enforcement population NPMSRP data. Click image for the full article
This data shows that police are just as likely to commit criminal acts as the general public.
At first, you might think this seems odd, but the police are regular people, not superheroes.
We often hear stories of good Samaritans doing wonderful things. So being a good person isn’t unique to police, nor is being a criminal unique to the general public either.
The reason I say they need to eschew the brotherhood mentality is that police often defend other police who have clearly done unconscionable things.
While at first, a police officer might think defending their “brothers” is the honorable thing to do, but it’s absolutely not in their best interests.
When an officer commits a crime, they violate their sworn oath to uphold the law of the land, dishonoring their noble profession. But it also creates animosity with the public who feel as though police can operate above the law without repercussion.
This hatred and distrust often leads enraged citizens to act violently towards the police, because they feel it the only way justice will be served—putting good cops needlessly at risk, as evidenced by the aforementioned Micah Johnson.
Instead, if an officer is arrested or put on probation for a potential felonious act, police should distance themselves from that person entirely, and make it clear that if the person is found guilty, that person is no “brother” of mine.
They should also be quick to report any criminal acts among their ranks, and clean their own house unmercifully. They will never get the trust and respect of disenfranchised citizens otherwise.
And let’s be honest, if you are a police officer, are you really OK with one of your own committing a murder or unprovoked assault?
Drew Peterson should serve as a shining example of the harm that can come from this blind loyalty. His fellow officers failed to properly address allegations of abuse against Drew when his then wife Stacy Peterson reported him a multitude of times for serious domestic abuse.
Stacy Peterson
It is almost certain that had his fellow officers taken Stacy’s complaints seriously, and treated Drew like any other violently abusive husband—investigating Drew in earnest, Stacy could very well be alive today, with Drew safely in jail where he belonged.
By all means, police should have each other’s backs, but never at the expense of what is right. A criminal is a criminal, whether they wear a badge or a wife-beater, they should be treated with the same prosecutorial mindset.
I could write an entirely separate post on the tactics police unions use to protect police in ways that harm the general public, and destroy the public’s trust in them. They should merely assign the accused a lawyer, and refrain from professing the person’s innocence or any other public statements until that officer is cleared of any wrongdoing.
But once convicted, their sentences should be as harsh as what would be applied to the general public (in my opinion harsher, since they swore to uphold those laws). The slap on the wrist sentence for an offense that would land us regular citizens in jail is surely one of the largest factors in eroding the relationship between the governed and the government.
In January of 2013, an Oregonian bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, refused to bake a cake for a lesbian couple who were soon to wed. Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakery’s owners, are Christian, and felt that baking such a cake would violate their religious beliefs. As such, they refused the lesbian couple’s business.
As reported here by Fox, the couple faced a $150,000 fine, based on a January 29th, 2015 ruling, for discrimination as a result of such action.
Being an atheist and a libertarian, I find Aaron and Missy’s actions egregious and disgusting. I suspect many people who champion gay rights are happy to see them in trouble. But, as much as libertarians are indeed for gay rights, we are supposed to champion rights for all people, qualifiers be damned.
While the courts are doing a good job protecting the rights of the lesbian couple, they are taking away rights from the Kleins in doing so, and this is no better.
If the Constitution’s 1st amendment guarantees free speech under the law so people can say hateful things, shouldn’t the 1st amendment’s freedom of religion clause protect those who practice religion-based hate just the same?
U.S. Constitution: 1st Amendment
If I were the gay couple looking to get the aforementioned cake, I’d be rather insulted by the Klein’s actions, but if I believe in liberty, I’d fight vehemently for them to engage in such hate, so long as their hate isn’t harming me in some way. Let the free market deal with the Kleins in the court of public opinion.
I could do so by taking my story to local media, which happened as a result of this case, but I could also go on social media like Facebook and Twitter and spread the fact that the Kleins are not gay-friendly, hoping reasonable people opt not to frequent their store, harming their business accordingly.
The free market appears to have done exactly that since the aforementioned article by Fox indicates they have since moved to doing business out of their home, because the loss of business cost them the ability to continue leasing their store. They opted to start a GoFundMe campaign to help them with their cause, but that later was shut down, again due to the free market flexing its muscle as gay rights groups got GoFundMe to pull the Klein’s campaign.
Religious groups on the right are calling for religious liberty, but in my opinion, they are equally bad in all of this, since I doubt many of them support the lesbian couple’s right to marry. If they do, good on them for not being hypocrites.
If America is indeed a free-market capitalist system, government has no right to impose its will on private enterprise in this way. Yet we Americans tolerate it because we ignore the fundamental basis of the Constitution—that we all have equal rights under the law, including business owners like the Kleins.
Equal rights under the law has to mean that any business should have the right to engage in, or refuse, business with anyone else for any reason imaginable, no matter how hateful and disgusting those reasons may be.
Why? Because it’s their business. Despite Obama’s claims to the contrary, they built it, and they own it. They should have the right to build it up or burn it down however they see fit.
But we so often call for such laws, because there seems to be this knee-jerk reaction that every time someone is wronged, instead of trusting in the free market to sort it out, we feel we must ask government to pass a law to prevent this from happening in the future instead. But that is not, nor ever should be, the purpose of government.
Government’s duty is only to protect your rights, not your feelings. In a free country, you are going to be exposed to people who offend you, but that also means you are free to walk away and not listen to them or deal with them.
The lesbian couple certainly could have found another bakery, or simply baked their own cake. Why would they want to do business with people they know don’t like them in the first place?
It’s certainly their right to ask the Kleins to bake them a cake, but how could anyone say they have a right to demand the Kleins bake them one? Don’t the Kleins have rights?
So as much as gay rights groups were up in arms until the January 29th decision was handed down, and now religious groups are up in arms instead, I’d call for both of them to stop being hypocrites. If you say you’re for freedom and rights, then you have to champion the rights for those who hate you too.
You may have read about a recent incident in Texas where a man, witnessing another man beating up a woman, stopped and drew his legal firearm on the woman’s attacker. A bystander contacted 911 who dispatched police moments later, and the attacker was eventually arrested by police with no shots fired, neither by the hero nor the police (the attacker appears to have been unarmed).
The police went on to say that they commended the heroic man’s actions for coming to the rescue of this woman. But as police so often do, stated that they didn’t want citizens exposing themselves to danger in this way.
This statement has a couple of interpretations.
Giving police the benefit of the doubt, this was to indemnify themselves from the impression that they would promote vigilantism. Meaning, that if they congratulated him entirely, gave him a key to the city, and/or named a street after him, it would encourage others to perform similar acts, one of which, if taken too far, could be felonious. There’s a line between justifiable homicide and murder, but sadly, it’s not like they teach this in school, so many may not know their rights as well as they should.
So taking this a step further, the next would-be hero-cum-felon might then say, “Well, I saw how police praised the other guy, so I wanted to do the same thing.” This then opens police up to a civil suit, arguing that the police encouraged such behavior.
The Bill of Rights
It is upsetting we have allowed our country to become so overly litigious to the point where we’re afraid to speak honestly in such a way, but alas, tort reform is a subject for another post.
However, the other motive for these officer’s comments I most lean toward is the complete lack of hubris they often possess which leads them to believe that because they have went to a police academy and/or have former military experience, only they are qualified to use force to save a life.
I have regrettably never served in our military, nor have I went to any police academy. But I’ve been to the shooting range often, and I know my weapon’s operation well enough for defense purposes in the event use of deadly force were justifiable in a given situation.
More importantly though, I was raised with a set of morals that prohibits me from standing by and letting someone die when I’m capable of saving their life.
One good punch could mean the difference between life and death in a situation like this. I’m not about to roll the dice on an innocent life by calling 911 and hoping the police arrive in time when my partners Smith & Wesson can assist me in putting this business to rest now.
Government often wants us to subjugate ourselves to the men in blue. If I’m committing a crime and get caught in the act, I would agree—you’re busted, take your lumps. But to all the police officers out there who feel I should always comply with them, even when I’m in the right, I want to make a couple quick points.
You serve me, not the other way around. I also pay your salary. We citizens entrust you to enforce laws we voted to enact. It has never been our duty to comply with you, it is your duty to serve and protect us, and your responsibility to know the law and operate within it. If you don’t understand and appreciate all of that—you are essentially violating the oath you took when you signed up to be police officer; so resign now.
If it were your wife who had been getting beaten half to death, would you still have wanted this man to wait? Or would you have preferred him to intervene as soon as possible? I think we know the answer to this, so don’t be a hypocrite.
We have a guaranteed right to bear arms in this country. One of the reasons is because our forefathers wanted us to be free to defend ourselves. If you don’t like an armed citizenry, you can either attempt to get the votes to amend the Constitution, or you can expatriate. Otherwise, accept that you serve in a support role. So long as we have our Constitution, the power lies with “We The People,” not “You the police.” It is not our duty to comply with you. If you are in the wrong, we should not comply. If you attempt to get us to comply with force, you can rightfully be killed in self-defense.
At this time, the hero in question is unnamed, but his actions are highly commendable in my opinion—I’d gladly buy him the drink of his choice. Since this is an opinion website, unlike many police officers I suspect might actually agree with me, I don’t mind saying that I think we should be doing more of this, not less.
Every American citizen, at least the non-criminal ones anyway, should exercise their right to arm themselves. And more importantly, every state in the union should have the same laws on how and what you can defend.
So while I am thankful for the 2nd amendment, I would welcome an addendum to it that reads something like:
The right for the people to defend themselves, innocent others, their property, and their position in space, shall not be infringed.
I feel this language is consistent with the Constitution’s paradigm of being a restriction on government, but I think it would further solidify one of the inherent intents of our Constitution’s second amendment, by taking away the ability of colorful language often used to subvert the 2nd amendment currently.
While there’s no doubt, self-defense wasn’t the only reason we have that enumerated right, and thus why it wasn’t specifically written in to the second amendment, the need for it was certainly understood and part of the equation. So I see no harm in specifically broadening that right. No matter where you are in America, when your life, property, space, or the life of an innocent other is threatened, you should not be wishing your lawyer was present to advise you before acting to save someone, your firearm and general understanding of the law should be all that is needed.
log·i·cal: capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion lib·er·tar·i·an: an advocate of the doctrine of free will; a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
![29zZnh0j[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/29zznh0j1-e1562001256653.jpeg)
![No_gun[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/no_gun1.jpg?w=300)
![fbi-logo-404553[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/fbi-logo-4045531.jpg?w=300){kind=logo}
![SundayAlcohol[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/sundayalcohol1.jpg?w=300)
![gun-and-the-constitution[1]](http://lastresistance.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/gun-and-the-constitution.jpg)
![oc_zps62e1c21e[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/oc_zps62e1c21e1.jpg?w=300)
![gay-marriage1[1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/gay-marriage11.jpg?w=300)
![lesbian_wedding_cake[1]](http://media.salon.com/2013/02/lesbian_wedding_cake.jpg)
![911[1][1]](https://logicallibertarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/91111.png?w=300)
The Logical Libertarian™ 