Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶414

In response to all of that, The Chief Justice's opinion clings to its primary argument in this case—that a statute must use the word “tariff” or “duty” or “tax” or the like to authorize tariffs on foreign imports. But this Court has repeatedly emphasized that the major questions doctrine is not a magic words requirement. The Chief Justice's opinion identifes no case that has demanded such specifcity. And in Algonquin, this Court unanimously and squarely rejected the same argument that the statutory provision must specifically mention “tariffs” or “duties” or “taxes” for the President to impose tariffs on foreign imports. Under The Chief Justice's opinion, the Nixon and Ford tariffs would also have been unlawful. So too might other tariffs imposed under the longstanding Section 232 tariff statute, which broadly authorizes the President to “adjust the imports” of a foreign good without…

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