The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Three Very Short SCOTUS Unanimous Opinions In One Day, But No Tariffs
The Tariffs case is still cooking, but the Court is clearing the brush.
Generally, at the end of June, there is a running angst for a pending significant case. It is unusual to have that sort of anticipation so early in the term, but here we are. In January, the Court has had three hand-down sessions. So far, eight signed opinions have been handed down. None of these cases have been particularly significant. And still not tariffs. The Court seems to have other priorities. You could imagine the Court saying that no other opinions will be issued until tariffs is released, but that has not been the plan.
What is the cause of the delay? Who knows. But let me offer some speculation. The longer this case goes, the more likely that Trump wins, at least in part. There is a stay in place, and new tariffs continue to be imposed. As the Court takes more time, the remedial issue becomes more complicated by the day. At the outset, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction in light of irreparable harm. And as the Court takes more time to write and review, that irreparable harm becomes greater. This ruling does not need to be a ruling for the ages, so iterative rounds of revisions have a diminishing return. After the case was argued, I put the odds at 51/49 that Trump loses. I've now flipped to 51/49 that Trump wins, at least in part.
The three cases decided today were all very short and were unanimous.
Berk v. Choy was a 9-0 reversal. The majority opinion by Justice Barrett was 11 pages.
Ellingburg v. United States was a 9-0 reversal. The majority opinion by Justice Kavanaugh was 5 pages.
Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton was a 9-0 affirmance. The majority opinion by Justice Alito was six pages long. Indeed, I watched the argument in Coney Island, which may have been the shortest oral argument in the modern era.
I can't recall a day with three majority opinions that were all unanimous and all so short. Also, I would note that Williams & Connolly was counsel in Coney Island and Ellingburg. Today was a good day for the Lisa Blatt and Amy Saharia.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Hard to predict.
Trump may lose, but the dissent may say he can impose tarrifs under a different section (Alito hinted this), which Trump would immediately do. So there would not be any relief for the plaintiffs anyway (which might explain why they arent lifting the stay).
I am in the Trump loses but he will immediately reimpose them camp.
Unless tarrifs can be retroactive, a decision against them on narrow grounds requires a refund of billions of dollars.
"requires"
SCOTUS can just use its equity powers to say no refunds are necessary, if it wants to split the baby.
Ellingburg is nominally unanimous, but Thomas entered a separate concurring opinion, explaining that he thought the ex post facto clause should, properly, apply to civil penalties, too. Well worth reading.
No, it isn't "nominally" unanimous. It's unanimous. A concurrence virtually always makes some argument not made in the lead opinion, or there wouldn't be any reason for it. But it in no way alters the fact that Thomas and Gorsuch "join the Court’s opinion in full."
Yes, I know, all I meant was that all 9 hadn't simply joined in the majority position and left it at that.
Thomas has a good argument for that, although the Court decided that in this case the restitution law does apply to criminal law so ex post facto may apply. The case is actually pretty interesting.
Berk is interesting, because it calls into question application of anti-SLAPP statutes in federal courts. Some allow it, others don't.
I think that Berk will become quite interesting in the inevitable fuselage of litigation against ice guys. I’m acting on the presumption that most if not all of this litigation will be transferred to federal court on the grounds that either the ice guy himself is a resident of another state and/or the US government is a codefendant, as the ice guy is an agent of the federal government.
Taking literally, and I’d like to see a law professor’s review of what the case actually means, Burk appears to say that it’s what’s in the federal rules and not state rules that matters. Well, there’s a lot of things in the state rules and a lot of states, but if SCOTUS says that the federalrules apply, it makes all of the state rules irrelevant. Right?
You meant fusilade, not fuselage, unless the main body of an aircraft has something to do with that litigation.
Lawsuits against ICE officers acting in their official capacities are governed by the Westfall Act. ICE guy is immune from personal liability. Sometimes the federal government pays. Sometimes sovereign immunity wins.
On tariffs, I think SCOTUS might be waiting to see if Congress tries to rein in the Executive Branch. OTOH, when Justice Robert's cannot get a reasonably priced bottle of French wine, or Justice Kavanaugh has to pay $30 for a pint of Guinness, we might see some action.
NAL, while figuring out the remedial issues may be tricky, wouldn’t that imply the Court has (1) decided against Trump and is (2) now figuring out how to apply the remedy?
If they ruled in favor of Trump, there wouldn’t be a remedial issue to deal with, thus nothing holding release of the decision?
Another thought: Trump’s threatening tariffs for this and that might be providing additional ammo (is it really a national emergency that Trump wasn’t awarded the Nobel?) to the No votes, and they’re holding up release in order to include the additional ammo in the decision?
Alternatively, Thomalito are deliberately holding things up so that when they can delay no longer, they can argue that it's been going on for so long, it would be disruptive to rule against Trump.
I don't see the problem with requiring tariffs to be repaid if they're illegal. OK I see it might be inconvenient for the government, but so what ? They've got a printing press, and they're not shy about using it. And if the government levies taxes on you when they're not entitled to, it would be alarming for the court to say "just stop that you naughty boys. But keep the cash."
PS As previously stated, I think the argument that tariffs are not a species of regulation of imports is feeble, but that's an entirely different question.