One Door Closes, Another Opens: Why the Supreme Court’s “Lone Wolf,” Justice Clarence Thomas, May Be Right About Presidential Tariff Authority

One door closes as another one opens with the Supreme Court recently striking down several of President Trump’s tariffs and import taxes imposed through emergency authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito dissented, while Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority alongside the Court’s progressive bloc. At its core, the ruling draws a sharp line between regulating foreign adversaries and raising revenue. According to the majority opinion, a President may impose embargoes or restrictions during emergencies but cannot use tariffs without explicit congressional authorization because tariffs resemble taxation. That distinction raises a fundamental question: If the executive branch as the authority to shut the door entirely on imports, especially in cases of emergencies, why can it not partially close it through tariffs?

 

Although the majority opinion emphasizes separation of powers and renewed cooperation between the executive and legislative branches (please, someone remind Democrats and those across the aisle of this principle), Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent raises a serious constitutional argument on foreign commerce regulation. Ultimately, Supreme Court rulings often come down to how each justice interprets the Constitution’s limits and intentions.

 

 

In the spirit of open debate, readers should examine the full ruling, including concurring and dissenting opinions. For this analysis, however, it is worth focusing on the Court’s so-called “lone wolf,” Justice Thomas, whose structural and originalist argument may carry more long-term weight than many realize. Even President Trump acknowledged during a press conference that he paid close attention to Thomas and Kavanaugh’s reasoning, signaling that this legal fight is far from over. Nevertheless, President Trump remained undeterred and wasted little time responding to the ruling. Shortly after the decision was announced, he made clear that neither he nor his economic agenda would slow down, unveiling a new executive order proposing a 10 percent global tariff on many of the same countries previously targeted. This time, however, the administration is approaching the issue through a different legal lens, one designed to make it far more difficult for the Supreme Court to strike it down a second time.

 

It appears the President listened closely, at least in part, to Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent, turning what many dismissed as an unpopular opinion into what may ultimately prove to be the most practical constitutional roadmap forward. The new tariffs would rely on Section 122 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, tying the measures directly to national security and trade fairness concerns, particularly efforts to combat the illegal flow of drugs from Canada, Mexico, and China. Previously, the administration imposed a 25 percent duty on many Canadian and Mexican imports and a 10 percent duty on Chinese imports.

 

 

Of course, the original argument for invoking emergency powers centered on a declared public health crisis fueled by a historic influx of deadly drugs, alongside trade deficits that weakened American manufacturing and critical supply chains. Whether one agrees with that framing or not, it forced the Court to confront a broader constitutional question: how far can a President go when economic policy intersects with national security?

 

Looking at where the country stood under the previous administration compared to where it stands today, two realities emerge. First, many Americans would argue that the situation had reached a critical point, with economic and security threats demanding decisive action. Second, Justice Thomas raises a compelling constitutional argument, building on Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s principal dissent, that Congress did in fact authorize the President to “regulate… importation,” as outlined in 50 U.S.C. §1702(a)(1)(B). Historical precedent suggests that Presidents across generations have exercised broad authority over foreign commerce, including duties on imports, regardless of whether an emergency was formally declared.

 

This brings to the forefront another concern. Limiting presidential authority in matters of economic security may ultimately limit the nation’s ability to defend itself. The Commander in Chief should retain broad primary authority when confronting high-stakes foreign threats, not unilaterally, of course, because we remain a constitutional republic, but with enough flexibility to act decisively. When adversarial nations exploit legal gray areas, excessive constraints risk turning constitutional balance into strategic paralysis.

 

Yes, the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse. That principle is not up for debate. But complementary executive actions aimed at protecting American workers, industries, and supply chains fall squarely within a broader Presidential, America First framework that strengthens national resilience and our collective resolve against the international order by making it crystal clear that the United States will no longer allow other countries to get away with breaking not only our laws, but endangering the lives of our citizens. This ruling may feel like a small win to some with political gains, but for those thinking long-term, it raises serious questions about whether the Court is narrowing tools that have historically been used to defend American interests beyond typical partisan political divides.

 

After all, Americans pay fees for everyday government services. Renewing a passport, entering a national park, and even applying for a license often comes with additional costs beyond federal taxes. Yet when it comes to defending the country economically, the majority opinion effectively suggests that foreign adversaries remain largely untouched by certain financial pressures. American farmers, consumers, and businesses should come first. Or should they?

 

Despite today’s ruling, one thing remains true. The President still has multiple legal avenues to pursue alternative tariffs and trade regulations. Taxes, in certain contexts, can function as regulatory tools, potentially satisfying the constitutional definition of import regulation within the executive branch. Foreign trade has always required cooperation between Congress and the presidency, and Congress has historically delegated significant authority during emergencies. If a President can block imports outright during a crisis, why shouldn’t he be able to use a less “extreme” tool like tariffs? That, in essence, is the question Justice Thomas forces us to confront.

 

 

As Speaker of the House Mike Johnson recently stated, President Trump’s tariff implementation raked in hundreds of billions of dollars in historic revenue for the government while restoring leverage in global trade negotiations, leverage many supporters argue was absent in the previous Biden administration.

 

Then there is the issue that Justice Kavanaugh warned about. It is easy to debate constitutional theory after the fact, but what about the economic fallout? What happens when billions of dollars collected under these tariffs suddenly need to be refunded to import groups? Those funds would not necessarily return to American consumers. Instead, they could flow back to large importers and multinational corporations, both foreign and domestic. Talk about yet another America Last scenario, at least according to those who

believed this court ruling would prioritize American workers. Justice Kavanaugh made the stakes clear in his dissent: “One issue will be refunds,” he wrote. “Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury. The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.”

 

According to Penn Wharton Budget Model economists, more than $175 billion could be at risk of being refunded, a figure first reported by Reuters. The long-term implications of that possibility remain uncertain, but they highlight how legal decisions can ripple far beyond the courtroom.

 

 

Ultimately, I chose to focus on Justice Thomas’s dissent because it moves beyond day-to- day policy arguments and dives into the deeper structural question at the heart of this case: how much authority should the President retain in shaping foreign economic strategy? His perspective, rooted in originalist constitutional interpretation, challenges us to reconsider where the line between congressional oversight and executive flexibility should be drawn. In moments of global uncertainty, tying the President’s hands too tightly may come with consequences. Every day spent locked in internal legal battles is a day adversarial nations continue advancing their own agendas. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized during his recent Munich remarks, unity and strategic clarity matter more than ever.

 

That is why the dissents from Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh deserve serious attention. Regardless of where one stands politically, America benefits when all constitutional arguments remain on the table.