Gorsuch lays groundwork for Supreme Court plan to derail Dem president no matter what

Neil Gorsuch, flanked to the left by other Supreme Court Justices, Official White House Photo by D. Myles Cullen

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch's stance in the recent ruling against Donald Trump's tariffs hints at a "quite extreme" outlook on how government ought to operate, according to a new analysis from Vox, and it could potentially help the Court derail any future Democratic president's agenda.

Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, was among the six justices who ruled on Friday that the president had overstepped his authority when levying tariffs under a specific law, which the Court determined had not given the president the ability to set a new tax under certain circumstances. Digging deeper into the concurring opinions for Vox on Tuesday, legal correspondent Ian Millhiser highlighted a notable contrast between Gorsuch's view of the matter and that of Amy Coney Barrett, another Trump-appointed justice.

Both conservatives ultimately agreed that the law in question, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not see Congress delegate some of its power to set taxes to the president. Barrett, according to Millhiser, seems to believe that Congress is capable of making such a move, and that the Supreme Court could not bar a president from acting on that given authority. Gorsuch, meanwhile, appears to believe that the Court could override anything that the majority of justices disliked, even if it was accomplished by an act of Congress.

"Gorsuch is among the Court’s most outspoken judicial supremacists, and his opinions suggest that his Court should invalidate many federal policies even when those policies are authorized by an act of Congress," Millhiser wrote. "Barrett, by contrast, suggests that her Court should take a more humble approach when the two elected branches do not share the justices’ preferences — even as she also concludes that Trump’ s tariffs went too far."

This view from Gorsuch is unlikely to have much impact during the remainder of Trump's second term, as, despite Friday's ruling, the Supreme Court generally rules in his favor. However, Millhiser argued that it could have a substantial impact on the ability of a future Democratic president to govern, as even the authorization of a Democrat-led Congress could not save their plans from a contrary Supreme Court ruling.

"Though this disagreement did not shape the outcome of [Friday's decision], it could matter a great deal in a future Democratic presidency, if Congress authorizes that president to act in a way that Republicans find objectionable," Millhiser explained. "Gorsuch’s opinion indicates that he will likely strike down such an act of Congress — or, at least, to read it narrowly enough to prevent the president from doing as he or she pleases."

On the flipside, Millhiser noted that Barrett's view on the issue indicates that she might vote in favor of a future Democratic administration, even if she opposes their actions on political grounds.

From Your Site Articles