11 06 25 ABC's Steven Portnoy talks about the SCOTUS hearing on Trump's tariffs

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now on Colorado's Morning News. The legality of President Trump's
tariff's front and center in a Supreme Court case.

Speaker 2 (00:07):
The government lawyer defending Trump's global tariffs, so he's tough
questions from justices yesterday, some skeptical of the administration's reach
and joining us on the KWA Common Spirit Health hotline
is ABC News National correspondent Stephen Portanway, Steven, appreciate your
time as always. Well, it seems that three conservative justices
were even questioning the Trump administration on this case. What

(00:27):
were some of the arguments that we hear from Trump's
team when it comes to regarding this tariff plan.

Speaker 3 (00:32):
Well, look, what the Trump team argues is that the
president has given power under a nineteen seventy seven law
called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act IIPA, which said
in nineteen seventy seven that in the time of an emergency,
the president can regulate the importation of goods to the country.

(00:53):
The question is whether he can apply taxes tariffs unilaterally.
What was most clear yesterday is where the Court's liberals
are on this. Sonya Soda Mayor told Solicitor General John Sower,
that's clear to her that President Trump is overstepped.

Speaker 4 (01:09):
It's a congressional power, not a presidential power to tax.

Speaker 1 (01:13):
And you want to say taris are not taxes, but
that's exactly what they are.

Speaker 3 (01:17):
And importantly that point was echoed by the Chief Justice,
John Roberts.

Speaker 2 (01:21):
The vehicle is in position of taxes on Americans, and
that has always been the core power of Congress.

Speaker 3 (01:28):
It's the idea of executive encroachment on what is the
purview of lawmakers. That led to a stark warning from
Neil Gorsch, the Trump appointed justice, who went into a
line of questioning about whether Congress can delegate certain of
its core functions to a president. Listen to what he said,
so one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion

(01:51):
of power in the executive branch and away from the
people's elected representatives. Now through the argument, Gorsuch and fellow
Trump appoint Amy com Barrett probed the text of that
IIPA statute, and Barrett seized on the fact that the
word tariff isn't even in the law, As she asked
the administration lawyer, this.

Speaker 4 (02:11):
Can you point to any other place in the code
or any other time in history where that phrase together
regulate importation has been used to confer tariff imposing authority.

Speaker 3 (02:21):
The only previous example that he could cite was the
law that AIPA replaced. It was called the Trading with
the Enemy Act, and it dates back to the era
of World War One. Richard Nixon used it to impose
tariffs in nineteen seventy one. Now that was challenged in court,
but it never made it to the Supreme Court. Conservative
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed to that example a few times
through the argument as he expressed some sympathy for the

(02:43):
president's moves here, and at one point through the argument,
the Chief Justice John Roberts tipped his hat to the
idea that tariffs could be an effective tool for the
president in his foreign policy. Broadly, the top line takeaway
from most observers has been that you heard the skepticism
from conservative justices, but we also hear from experts who

(03:05):
see that this is still a bit of a toss up.
You heard the justices looking for other areas in the
law where perhaps tariffs could be seen as legal. For example,
the law makes reference to a license. Could a tariff
be equivalent to a license? I don't know, but there
was something in the yesterday's argument that reminded me of

(03:26):
the Obamacare argument in twenty twelve, where everyone thought that
the takeaway was that the conservative justices were going to
strike down the Obamacare law, and in the end Chief
Justice Roberts wrote the opinion that carved out a lane
in the taxing power of Congress.

Speaker 1 (03:43):
Now, I'm sorry, students, go ahead.

Speaker 3 (03:46):
Briefly say that that's not exactly an issue here, because
we're talking about the limits of a president's power when
Congress has not given it to him. But maybe in
a similar way, of the logical way that these justices think,
maybe they'll look for a way to keep these tariffs alive.

Speaker 1 (04:01):
Steve and I may be jumping ahead here, but we've
heard pundits talking over the last eighteen hours or so
about whether if this is ruled unconstitutional and unconstitutional, that
is what happens to money that's already been collected through tariffs.

Speaker 3 (04:17):
Well, right, I mean, look, ninety billion dollars you know,
according to some estimates, is sitting in the treasury as
a result of the tariffs that have been imposed by
the president so far this year alone. The President has
talked about this idea that we can use this money
to offset, you know, the deficit and pay it down. Look,
the bottom line is, and this was made clear by

(04:38):
Amy Cony Barrett through a question yesterday, it would be
a mess to hand out tens of billions of dollars
and unwind the tariffs. I wonder how much that'll weigh
on the justices, whether they want to cause that kind
of circumstance. But the fact is people, Americans have been
made to pay that money, American business owners, and if

(04:58):
they're aggrieved here, why should didn't they get their money back?

Speaker 2 (05:02):
And Stephen real quick fast tracked debates here that we're
seeing fast tracked arguments while we see a fast tracked decision.

Speaker 3 (05:09):
Don't know, no way to know. The expectation is that
this will not be the case that we wait till
the end of June to hear. The result of the
expectation is because the justices hastily arranged this argument put
it on the calendar relatively early in the term, that
we could get an answer from the court within a
matter of months or weeks.

Speaker 1 (05:30):
ABC's Stephen portin wiz. Stephen, thank you very much,