{"id":19451,"date":"2025-11-05T19:29:52","date_gmt":"2025-11-05T18:29:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/?p=19451"},"modified":"2025-11-05T19:38:37","modified_gmt":"2025-11-05T18:38:37","slug":"der-tag-der-wahrheit-der-supreme-court-prueft-trumps-zoelle-und-der-boden-wankt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/en\/der-tag-der-wahrheit-der-supreme-court-prueft-trumps-zoelle-und-der-boden-wankt\/","title":{"rendered":"The Day of Reckoning - The Supreme Court Reviews Trump\u2019s Tariffs, and the Ground Is Shaking"},"content":{"rendered":"

It was 10 a.m. in Washington when the Supreme Court session began. The case before the highest court of the United States that day could redefine the limits of presidential power. It concerns the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump in the spring \u2013 a measure with which he seeks to reorder international trade, enacted under the \u201cInternational Emergency Economic Powers Act\u201d (IEEPA) of 1977. The central question is whether a president may impose tariffs without congressional approval if he declares an economic emergency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump himself was not present. He had publicly considered attending the hearing but decided against it over the weekend. \u201cIt\u2019s not about me, it\u2019s about our country,\u201d he said on Sunday. Whoever believes that, bless them. Instead, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent sat in the audience while Trump\u2019s top attorney, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, stood at the lectern. Sauer defended the tariffs as lawful, citing the president\u2019s foreign policy authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Clarence Thomas<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Under the post-pandemic procedure, Justice Clarence Thomas, 77 years old and the court\u2019s longest-serving member, began with the first questions. After that, the remaining justices followed in order of seniority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts. Thomas addressed the core issue: whether Trump\u2019s invocation of the IEEPA, a law designed for international crises, also permits the imposition of import tariffs. Sauer argued that tariffs are \u201cin many ways the classic and natural form\u201d of regulating the import of goods. But several justices showed skepticism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
John Roberts<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Under the post-pandemic procedure, Justice Clarence Thomas, 77 years old and the court\u2019s longest-serving member, began with the first questions. After that, the remaining justices followed in order of seniority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts. Thomas addressed the core issue: whether Trump\u2019s invocation of the IEEPA, a law designed for international crises, also permits the imposition of import tariffs. Sauer argued that tariffs are \u201cin many ways the classic and natural form\u201d of regulating the import of goods. But several justices showed skepticism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under the post-pandemic procedure, Justice Clarence Thomas, 77 years old and the court\u2019s longest-serving member, began with the first questions. After that, the remaining justices followed in order of seniority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts. Thomas addressed the core issue: whether Trump\u2019s invocation of the IEEPA, a law designed for international crises, also permits the imposition of import tariffs. Sauer argued that tariffs are \u201cin many ways the classic and natural form\u201d of regulating the import of goods. But several justices showed skepticism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Neil Gorsuch<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

ustice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Trump himself, also pressed the issue. \u201cDoes the word \u2018regulate\u2019 automatically include tariffs?\u201d Sauer said yes, but Barrett remained cautious. She noted that \u201cregulate\u201d in the legal sense does not necessarily mean \u201cto tax.\u201d Neal Katyal, a former acting Solicitor General under President Obama, represents small businesses challenging the tariffs. In response to a question from Thomas, he explained the difference between embargoes and tariffs: \u201cAn embargo stops the shipment \u2013 a tariff starts the tax bill.\u201d The courtroom laughed briefly, but Katyal stayed focused. The president, he said, may direct trade policy, but he may not raise revenue for the state unless Congress explicitly authorizes it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n