Why Is the U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling on Reciprocal Tariffs Being Delayed... Is There Internal Foot-Dragging? [Lee Sang-eun’s Washington Now]
공유하기
Summary
- It reported that the U.S. Supreme Court has not issued a ruling under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the legal basis for the Donald Trump administration’s signature economic policies, including reciprocal tariffs and fentanyl-related tariffs.
- It reported that President Trump’s move to apply additional IEEPA tariffs to countries near Greenland and to signal tariffs of up to 25% is amplifying concerns about a “slippery slope” related to expanding tariff authority.
- It said that even if the court rules on the president’s authority to impose tariffs, it may not present specific remedies such as tariff refunds, and concerns were raised that the refund process could lead to major confusion.
The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling on the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as the legal basis for reciprocal tariffs and fentanyl-related tariffs—signature economic policies of Donald Trump’s U.S. administration. Since there was never a set timetable for when a decision would be released, it is not accurate to say the ruling has been “delayed.” Still, the fact that no decision has come out has prompted a range of interpretations.
The outlet that most closely tracks the Supreme Court’s decisions is SCOTUSblog, a media site that effectively serves as a “Supreme Court watcher.” SCOTUS takes its name from the English abbreviation for the U.S. Supreme Court. The site offers detailed analysis not only of major decisions but also of justices’ opinions and the court’s schedule, drawing on precedents and ideological leanings.
Interest is high in the United States, given that the reciprocal-tariff case is both a core Trump policy and a decision touching the foundations of America’s separation of powers. According to assessments from media participants and observers in a live chat opened by SCOTUSblog ahead of the tariff ruling, the case is being described as “technically very complex.” With the lower-court opinion alone running 127 pages, there are numerous legal issues at stake.
One participant said that because the disputes are intense, revisions between the majority and dissenting opinions may be repeatedly underway, adding that there could be moves within the court to clarify individual positions through separate concurrences or dissents. This is similar to how, in Korea, judges sometimes leave room for “different perspectives” through supplemental opinions in major rulings, demonstrating the diversity of legal viewpoints.
Given that the decision appears to be taking longer than expected, these media participants assessed that a unanimous outcome is unlikely. While most Supreme Court precedents (42%) are unanimous, they said it would be difficult to see this case the same way.
Some also suggested that President Trump’s announcement that he could apply additional IEEPA tariffs to countries near Greenland may be influencing matters. Trump said he would impose a 10% tariff (interpreted as an additional tariff) starting Feb. 1 on eight countries—including the United Kingdom and France—that have deployed troops to Denmark, raise it to 25% from June, and keep it in place until Greenland is fully purchased.
Secretary of State Scott Bessent justified this with the logic of a “national emergency to prevent a national emergency.” In response, observers argued that it may actually substantiate the opposition’s warning about a “slippery slope” (the risk of excessive expansion of authority).
During oral arguments last November, even conservative-leaning justices voiced concern that it could become a starting point for granting the executive branch excessive authority. A SCOTUSblog representative explained that past statistics show that in roughly 10% of cases, justices’ votes changed during the opinion-drafting process after oral arguments due to “changes in the facts on the ground.” The view is that such shifts could increase pressure on the court to issue its decision quickly.
It was also raised that even if the court rules on the president’s authority to impose tariffs, it may not lay out a remedy in specific terms. While tariff refunds are central, it remains unclear whether the court will address them directly. During oral arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed concern that the refund process could cause major disruption. In effect, the Trump administration could erect excessive barriers that administratively prevent refunds from actually occurring.
Even members of the Trump administration are in the dark about when the ruling will be released. When the Supreme Court scheduled its first major decision of the year for the 9th, Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council (NEC), said a meeting of key cabinet members (a “big call”) was held the night before to discuss response measures.
The same is true for reporters covering the court. On the morning of the 20th, the Supreme Court pressroom had a “quiet atmosphere with only the usual reporters,” according to these journalists. Even the parties to the litigation do not receive advance hints. Neal Katyal, the attorney representing the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, also joined SCOTUSblog’s live chat to check reporters’ views on how the decision is progressing. The next decision-release date has not yet been announced.
Washington=Lee Sang-eun, Correspondent selee@hankyung.com
