Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶456

On the contrary, the Court openly acknowledged that the relevant statutes—IEEPA and the Hostage Act—did not provide clear or “specific authorization” for the President to suspend those claims. Id., at 677. The Court nonetheless concluded that the “general tenor of Congress' legislation in this area”—combined with Congress's longstanding acquiescence to the President's practice of settling claims—supported the President's suspension of those claims. Id., at 678. Congress's “general tenor” and acquiescence are of course far less than the “clear congressional authorization” that The Chief Justice's opinion today newly demands for the President's tariffs.

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