Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, President of U.S. (24-1287)

argument 24-1287

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, President of U.S.

Supreme Court of the United States 2h 39m 8 speakers 7 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the opening statement and context of the case?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument this morning in case twenty four twelve eighty seven learning resources versus Trump. and the consolidated case. General Sauer.

General Brian D. Sauer 0:12

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. On April second, President Trump determined that our exploding trade deficits have brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe. He further pronounced that the traffic of fentanyl and other opioids into our country Has created a public health crisis taking hundreds of thousands of American lives. President Trump has declared that these emergencies are country killing and not sustainable, that they threaten the bedrock of our national and economic security, and that fixing them will make America a strong, financially viable and respected country again. Due to AIPA tariffs, President Trump has negotiated agreements worth trillions of dollars with major trading partners, including most recently China.

General Brian D. Sauer 0:54

Unwinding those agreements, he warns, would expose us to ruthless trade retaliation by far more aggressive countries and drive America from strength to failure with ruinous economic and national security consequences. In Dames and Moore against Regan, this court held that AIPA's sweeping and unqualified language grants the president's actions the strongest presumption of validity and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation. Yet plaintiffs argue that tariffs, AIPA's least blunt and most nimble tool, are virtually the only tool that Congress did not grant the President to deal with foreign emergencies. That is wrong. The phrase regulate importation plainly embraces tariffs, which are among the most traditional and direct methods of regulating importation.

Why does the government argue that the Major Questions Doctrine does not apply?

General Brian D. Sauer 1:38

And plaintiffs concede that AIPA authorizes quotas and other tariff equivalents. The major questions doctrine does not apply here. IHPA confers major powers to address major problems on the president who is perhaps the most major actor in the the realm of foreign affairs. In the nondelegation doctrine casts no doubt on AIPA because Congress may assign the President broad authority regarding the conduct of foreign affairs where he enjoys his own inherent Article two powers. I welcome the court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:08

Uh would you spend a few minutes uh on why exactly the major question uh doctrine doesn't apply to the president in this case?

General Brian D. Sauer 2:17

Uh yes, Justice Thomas. I and I maybe make two or three points on that front. First of all, Uh uh though the major questions doctrine may apply to the president in other contexts, specifically in the foreign affairs context, where he has his own inherent Article II authority, it's a particularly poor fit to apply the major questions doctrine, and that's for at least two reasons. First of all, just as a matter of kind of common sense interpretation, one would expect Congress to confer major powers on the President to address major, you know, sort of foreign power international crises, so to speak. Cornerizing emergencies, uh, that's just sort of a natural common sense thing you expect Congress to do.

General Brian D. Sauer 2:51

And in fact, you know, Justice Jackson in his Youngstown opinion addressed this very situation in pages 652 and 653 when he says, this is the system within our, or this is the procedure within our constitutional system that we have developed to strike the balance. Uh, you know, what Dames and Moore described as the never-ending tension between the need for the executive to address a have a robust Powers to address emergencies and to subject it to checks and balances. What our constitutional system has devised to address that particular problem, that never-ending tension, is the system where Congress confers broader magistrary powers in advance and subjects them to ongoing political oversight, which is exactly what you see in AIPA.

General Brian D. Sauer 3:28

So that's one reason. One reason is just as a matter of common sense interpretation, you would expect Congress to grant major powers to the President, who has his own broad range of major authorities. authority, uh Article inherit Article II authority in this context.