Thomas has been a staple on the Supreme Court for decades. Now he’s steaming mad.
And Clarence Thomas ripped into Supreme Court colleagues for abandoning the Constitution.
Justice Thomas Blasts Supreme Court Majority in Tariff Ruling
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas tore into the Court’s 6-3 decision striking down President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs. Joined partially by Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, Thomas argued the majority fundamentally misunderstood both the law and constitutional principles, handing a win to critics of executive authority while undermining tools to protect American industry.
Thomas’s Forceful Defense of Executive Power
Thomas, writing separately, insisted the statute clearly empowered the president. He stated, “Congress authorized the President to ‘regulate … importation,’” adding, “Throughout American history, the authority to ‘regulate importation’ has been understood to include the authority to impose duties on imports.”
He highlighted historical precedent, noting, “The meaning of that phrase was beyond doubt by the time that Congress enacted this statute, shortly after President Nixon’s highly publicized duties on imports were upheld based on identical language.”
Thomas further declared, “The statute that the President relied on therefore authorized him to impose the duties on imports at issue in these cases,” and accused the majority of erring by concluding otherwise.
He rejected reliance on separation-of-powers concerns, writing that the nondelegation doctrine does not bar “a delegation of power to make rules governing private conduct in the area of foreign trade,” including duties on imports.
Majority’s Overreach and Blow to American Interests
The majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that IEEPA does not grant the president authority to unilaterally impose tariffs of “unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” requiring clear congressional authorization for such broad power.
Roberts wrote, “The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”
This outcome blocked Trump’s emergency-based tariffs aimed at addressing trade imbalances, boosting manufacturing, and protecting U.S. jobs—policies that had generated record revenues and supported trade negotiations. The decision risks uncertainty in existing deals and potential refunds of billions already collected, as noted in dissents.
Another Win for the Establishment Over Practical Solutions
The ruling exemplifies how unelected judges can hamstring a president’s ability to respond swiftly to foreign economic threats, favoring rigid interpretations over historical practice and executive flexibility in trade.
While the majority claimed humility in deferring to Congress, Thomas’s dissent exposed the decision as a misreading that ignores longstanding understandings of presidential authority in foreign commerce.
For leaders prioritizing American workers and manufacturing revival—like Trump’s tariff strategy—this setback highlights ongoing resistance from institutional forces more comfortable with status-quo globalism than bold corrective measures.
