Dave Townsend

how definitive it was with respect to the statutory interpretation question.

The lower courts had been maybe a bit more measured.

They had said that the use of the IEPA authority had exceeded what IEPA was intended to permit.

And the Supreme Court, it looks to me, went one step further and said that the language of the statute doesn't permit tariffs full stop.

Sure, June, and it's great to be with you.

Yeah, the basic premise of the opinion is that the IEPA statute, which empowers the president to take action to regulate importation, doesn't extend to imposing tariffs.

And so as a matter of statutory interpretation, the president exceeded the authority in issuing the global and fentanyl-related tariffs.

One thing that did surprise me a bit, June, about the opinion was how definitive it was with respect to the statutory interpretation question.

The lower courts had been maybe a bit more measured.

They had said that the use of the IEPA authority had exceeded what IEPA was intended to permit.

And the Supreme Court, it looks to me, went one step further and said that the language of the statute doesn't permit tariffs full stop.

Yeah, I mean, I think a win is a win, right?

You only need five to uphold the lower court and find the tariffs were unlawful.

But I do think the six to three vote provides even a sharper defeat here for the administration's arguments.

I mean, you had...

Yeah, so the predecessor to IEPA was the Trading with the Enemies Act, TWIA, and the court had previously said that the language in TWIA, that is to regulate importation, did authorize limited tariffs.

And so I think the dissent is pointing back at that and saying consistent with that holding, we would find that the same language that Congress used in TWIA, they carried it over into IEPA, would authorize

the imposition of tariffs.

And I mean, I do think that as a matter, if you were reading IEPA in a vacuum, the question of whether the language to regulate importation permits tariffs is tricky.

It's difficult.