Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶192

This case presents more nearly the opposite situation: The use of a clear-statement rule here is unnecessary because ordinary principles of statutory interpretation lead to the same result.It is not just that the Government's arguments fail to satisfy an especially strict test; it is that they fail to satisfy the normal one. Even without a clear- statement rule in the picture, the conclusion follows: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. And indeed, the principal opinion's reasoning well explains why. The rest of this opinion draws on that analysis (I hope without too much rehashing) to demonstrate what I view as the fundamental point: Usual text-in-context interpretation dooms the tariffs the President has imposed. The crucial provision of IEEPA, when viewed in light of the broader statutory scheme and with a practical awareness of how Congress delegates tariff…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.