My History Can Beat Up Your Politics GORSUCH'S ROLLERCOASTER, BARRETT'S BABYSITTER, SUPREME COURT AND TARIFFS
Feb 23, 2026
A Supreme Court ruling limits presidential power to impose broad tariffs and explores why tariff policy belongs to Congress. The conversation links the decision to the major-questions doctrine and debates over textualism versus historical analysis. A colorful babysitter metaphor illustrates clashes between different judicial approaches and what this means for delegation and federalism.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Court Limits Presidential Tariff Power
- The Supreme Court ruled President Trump could not use IEEPA to impose broad, unilateral tariffs.
- The Court said tariff-setting is Congress's power and the cited statute lacked clear authorization for naming countries or setting percentages.
Major Questions Doctrine Shapes Agency Reach
- The decision invokes the major questions doctrine, limiting agencies from using vague statutory language to make sweeping policy shifts.
- Bruce ties this to West Virginia v. EPA, where the Court rejected EPA's gridwide clean power plan as beyond its narrow statutory grant.
Historical Nonuse Signals Statutory Limits
- The Court noted historical nonuse of IEEPA for tariffs as evidence Congress didn't intend it for sweeping tariff authority.
- Roberts emphasized that in half a century no president used IEEPA to impose large tariffs, so such power likely exceeds statutory reach.