Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶377

I agree that this case involves an executive action of major economic and political significance—which is typically the trigger for requiring “clear congressional authorization.” But in my respectful view, The Chief Justice's opinion's application of the major questions doctrine in this case is incorrect for two alternative and independent reasons. First, the statutory text, history, and precedent constitute “clear congressional authorization” for the President to impose tariffs as a means to “regulate . . . importation.” Second, and in the alternative, the major questions doctrine does not apply in the foreign affairs context. In the foreign affairs realm, courts recognize that Congress often deliberately grants fexibility and discretion to the President to pursue America's interests. In that context, courts therefore engage in “routine” textualist statutory interpretation— reading the…

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