Three conservative justices warned on Friday that the court overstepped its boundaries in its decision to block President Donald Trump from imposing emergency tariffs, arguing that the president should be able to impose them under his authority over foreign affairs. In a 63-page dissent written by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, dissenters also expressed concern that the decision would lead to chaos, at least in the short term, as importers who have already paid tariffs seek refunds. “The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid IEEPA tariffs, although some importers may have passed on the costs to consumers or others,” Kavanaugh wrote, referring to the acronym for the 1970s emergency regulations Trump invoked to impose tariffs. He noted that oral arguments discussed how such a refund process could become “a mess.” He also noted that the administration has used tariff leverage to strike important trade deals with other countries. Trump, he wrote, “helped broker trillions of dollars’ worth of trade deals — including with China, the United Kingdom, Japan and others.” The court’s ruling “could create uncertainty about these trading arrangements,” he wrote. While Kavanaugh warned of dire consequences from the court’s ruling, he expressed optimism about Trump’s ability to continue imposing tariffs. Kavanaugh wrote that while he “firmly” disagreed with the outcome, “this decision may not significantly limit the president’s ability to order tariffs in the future.” He laid out several potential avenues for the president to impose tariffs, adding that these other federal regulations “could justify most, if not all, of the tariffs at issue in this case.” However, he added that the regulations may require additional measures not required by the emergency laws Trump has invoked so far. He listed specific sections of several federal laws, including the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974 and the Tariff Act of 1930, and wrote that the majority concluded that “the President checked the wrong statutory box in relying on emergency laws.”
