During Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson caused a stir when she appeared confused while questioning U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer about President Donald Trump’s authority to impose tariffs independently.
The case centers on Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law granting presidents temporary powers to regulate international trade in emergency situations.
The Court is reviewing whether the president exceeded his authority under IEEPA when he issued tariffs on foreign nations accused of taking advantage of U.S. economic interests.
According to The Gateway Pundit, Trump invoked IEEPA to enforce tariffs following a 7–4 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that rejected his authority to do so.
The Supreme Court agreed last month to take up the case, expediting its review given the broader implications for presidential power.
During the hearing, Justice Jackson pressed Sauer for historical examples of presidents who used emergency powers to enact tariffs.
Sauer cited President Richard Nixon’s 1971 tariffs, which were issued under the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA)—the precursor to IEEPA—and temporarily imposed a 10 percent surcharge on imports to address global currency imbalances.
That’s when the exchange took an unexpected turn.
“That wasn’t a tariff,” the confused Jackson said. “It was a licensing agreement during wartime. It was a specific thing. A tariff, I’m talking about.”
“I’m referring to President Nixon’s 1971 tariffs,” Sauer explained.
“Oh, the president. I’m sorry. Excuse me. Yes. I thought you meant Lincoln,” Jackson replied.
The exchange quickly circulated online, fueling debate over Jackson’s grasp of constitutional and economic history.
The Western Journal noted that legal analyst Jonathan Turley described the hearing as “interesting,” emphasizing broader constitutional implications, particularly Congress’s exclusive authority to regulate commerce and levy taxes.
Critics argue that the Court’s engagement with emergency powers sets a precedent that could reshape the balance between the legislative and executive branches.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly vests Congress with the power to impose tariffs and regulate foreign trade, the outlet highlighted.
Advocates for strict constitutional interpretation contend that unilateral presidential action risks overstepping legislative authority and undermining the balance of powers carefully designed by the Founders.
Conservative observers also assert that Jackson’s brief confusion underscores concerns about judicial overreach.
The Supreme Court does not inherently hold authority to interpret constitutional limits on behalf of Congress or the executive branch.
Mistakes by justices could carry significant policy consequences, affecting economic stability and national trade strategy.
Historical precedent further informs the debate.
Before assuming the presidency, James Madison championed tariffs as instruments to protect American trade and prevent international conflict, The Western Journal notes.
Nixon’s 1971 tariffs, referenced by Sauer, were enacted under emergency powers to address sudden economic pressures and later withdrawn following international agreements to stabilize currency values.
Critics argue that restricting presidential discretion in this domain disregards both constitutional intent and historical practice.
Even if the Court rules against Trump, he retains the constitutional right to contest decisions that infringe on executive authority.
Congressional legislation could clarify tariff powers and protect future measures from legal challenges.
Jackson’s brief gaffe illustrates ongoing questions about judicial competence, historical knowledge and the scope of Supreme Court influence over executive action, underscoring the broader stakes of this case for U.S. economic policy and national trade strategy.
WATCH:
