By John A. Tures, Professor of Political Science, LaGrange College

Last Friday’s Supreme Court ruling in the case Learning Resources Inc. et.al. v. Trump, President of the United States et.al., was one for the ages, perhaps one of the biggest economic rulings as well as a decision firmly cementing the establishment of the separation of powers and checks and balances. But Trump’s words before and afterwards show a refusal to accept the spirit of the law, and perhaps the letter of the law, which should trigger another showdown.

First of all, it was surprising that the Learning Resources case that was argued last year lasted as long as it did. As the case reads “The question presented is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose tariffs.” Trump chose to do so, slapping tariffs on Canada for drugs coming into the U.S.A., and claiming that tariffs would address trade deficits and protect American manufacturing.

Certainly, fighting drugs and helping American manufacturing are two laudable goals. But so is following the Constitution. Clearly, the power to tax is one the Founding Fathers deliberately bestowed on Congress, not the President. The administration’s contention that tariffs are “regulations” should have been overturned within minutes of the final argument in the case.

After all, as the Cato Institute has pointed out, “President Trump says tariffs can pay for income tax cuts. But new research finds they would raise less than one-fifth of federal income tax revenue,” citing economist Jeffrey Amiron. The Cato Institute adds “tariffs are a blunt tool that often hurts the industries they claim to protect.” So not only did the Trump Administration know that tariffs were taxes, a revenue-raising scheme, but the free-market Cato team shows they wouldn’t even help our industry.

Perhaps part of the delay was because the Supreme Court had to withstand the most Presidential pressure since President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried extraordinary measures to pressure the Supreme Court to bend to his will in preserving the New Deal. That only escalated after Trump lost 6-3 in the Supreme Court. He has since threatened the justices, making ironic and unsubstantiated claims that foreign interests influenced the judicial rulings, even among three conservative justices, two of which were his nominees, according to NBC. At least FDR didn’t make wild claims about criminal activity on the court.

It is worth noting that FDR’s party suffered heavily during the 1938 mid-term elections. Some of it was about the drought, and some of it can be attributed to the recovery slump. But the president’s autocratic behavior emerging while fascism and communism marched across Europe likely played on the minds of voters. Thankfully, FDR withdrew his court-packing scheme and learned his lesson, rebounding in the 1940 election against Wendell Wilkie. Trump may not apologize for his inflammatory rhetoric, but he should back off, lest he want to repeat history, and lower his already sagging approval ratings. The other branches should pressure Trump to “prove it” with his wild allegations. He likely can’t.

Trump has promised to jack up tariffs 10%, or maybe 15% (it changes from day to day) using Section 122 from the 1974 Trade Act. He can do so, for 150 days. But his words incorrectly claiming he doesn’t need Congressional authorization to continue such a policy show that there’s another Constitutional showdown in the making. This should be analogous to U.S. v. Nixon, and a unanimous ruling (or at least 7-2, perhaps), reminding the President that the Constitution not only prevails, but was never crafted by the Founding Fathers for a one-man rule like we see in Russia, China and East Europe.

John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Georgia. His views are his own. He can be reached at jtures@lagrange.edu or on “X” at @johntures2. His first book “Branded” a thriller novel about corporate schemes, shadowy media coverage, and academic pressures, has been published by the Huntsville Independent Press (https://www.huntsvilleindependent.com/product-page/branded).