Consider This from NPR - Tariffs aren't a presidential power, says California Attorney General

Episode Date: November 5, 2025

Next year, the Supreme Court will decide whether the President can use a five decade old emergency powers act to shape the U.S. economy.Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or AYEEPA, last spring when he imposed sweeping tariffs of at least 10 percent across all countries.Wednesday, the nine justices heard oral arguments in the case. And however they decide it — the ruling could affect economic policy and presidential power for years to come.California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a democrat, was at the Court and joined Consider This host Juana Summers to talk about the suit and the steps his state is taking to rein in the Trump administration.For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at [e-mail] episode was produced by Brianna Scott and Erika Ryan with engineering by David Greenburg.It was edited by Courtney Dorning.  Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

President Donald Trump's trade agenda is on the line Wednesday. That's when the Supreme Court hears arguments about his broad use of tariffs. The power to impose tariffs is a core application of the power to regulate foreign commerce. That's John Sauer, solicitor general, arguing on behalf of the government. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back against Sauer's argument on tariffs not being a tax. I just don't understand this argument. It's not an article. it's a congressional power, not a presidential power, to tax.

And you want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that's exactly what they are. Trump has been talking about the power of tariffs for some four decades, but this battle began back in April. Standing in the Rose Garden, President Trump proclaimed Liberation Day. April 2nd, 2025 will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn. Carrying out his campaign pledge to improve. pose massive tariffs on foreign imports. A few moments, I will sign a historic executive order instituting reciprocal tariffs on

countries throughout the world. Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEPA, when he imposed the sweeping tariffs. The goal, he said, was to rebuild American manufacturing. We're going to build our future with American hand, with American heart. This will be indeed the golden age. of America. And as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday, the case goes beyond tariffs.

Prominent lawyers and scholars, many of them conservative, argue this case is about presidential power. This fits into a wider picture that over the last, you know, several decades, presidents of both political parties have been increasingly asserting unilateral power that had never been exercised by presidents in the past and that under the Constitution, belonged to Congress. That's Michael McConnell. He represents one of the plaintiffs. He's also a constitutional law professor at Stanford University and a former federal judge nominated by President George W. Bush. He spoke to NPR about what's at stake if the court sides with President Trump. Tariff policy on a dime, there can be no confidence by the international system

that the United States is going to stick with a policy or comply with trade negotiations the we have in the past. Consider this, the Supreme Court will decide whether the president has the power to impose tariffs. Should the justices rule in Trump's favor, the effects will extend well beyond America's balance sheet. From NPR, I'm Juana Summers. It's consider this from NPR. California Attorney General Rob Bonta was at the Supreme Court Wednesday watching the arguments play out.

Banta filed a friend of the court brief in this case, and it's one of dozens in which the state of California has opposed Trump administration policy. I spoke to General Bonta shortly after the arguments wrapped. So I just want to start with this. Obviously, we'll turn to tariffs in just a moment, but it was a big day for your party, a big day for Democrats up and down the ballot. yesterday Democrats achieved two governorships in New Jersey and Virginia. There was a big vote in your state supporting redistricting. What message do you take away from what we saw from voters last evening? A couple. One that the status quo is not working for voters. It was very much a referendum on Trump. He wasn't on the ballot, but he was essentially on the ballot. Folks were pushing back

against his policies. And it turns out that people like the rule of law. They like democracy. They like the Constitution. They want hungry people to be fed. They want Americans to have affordable health care. They don't want our cities to be militarized. And they don't want tariffs that raise costs. And they don't want ICE as mass agents all over our cities either. So that was, I think, declared loud and clear by the voters that came out. Let's turn now to those tariffs and to the Supreme Court in your role as Attorney General of the State of California. You filed a friend of the court brief in this case. And as I understand, at the core of your argument, one that is supported by California's governor, Gavin Newsom, is that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEPA, it does not cover the use of tariffs.

My understanding that correctly. 100% correct. Tariffs are taxes. Congress has the power to tax. It's in Article 1 of the United States Constitution. The statute upon which the president relies to impose tariffs of 10% to 145% across nearly all of our trading partners, it doesn't mention the word tariffs once. And in other statutes where if the federal government wants to give authority to the president, they mention the word tariffs. They delegate that authority clearly. Also, AIPA has never been used in nearly 50 years of its existence to impose a tariff by any prior president.

So he doesn't have the authority. We think it's very clear. And the U.S. Supreme Court argument today, I think, surfaced those key issues very clearly. There have, though, been under other rulings under a previous statute that said that tariffs are indeed within the president's power to regulate trade. How would you respond to that? When a statute gives the power to impose tariffs by the president, they say it. And they use the word tariff or other clear language. There's no such clear expression of delegation of tariff authority to the president in AEPA. So AIPA has never been used for tariff, imposing tariffs by any president. And that's the statute issue. But I think, though, about the precursor da IEPA, which was the trading with the enemy act, which was enacted then during World War I. And that has been brought up in this case. It has been brought up. And that was not a U.S. Supreme Court. court case. IEPA was a statute that was passed by Congress after the Trading with the Enemy Act, and it was meant to create constraints and restrictions. And every other statute that confers tariff-making authority on the president says it. Aipa did not. And so the prior case on the Trading with the Enemy Act does not get the government where they hope to go here

with the broad-ranging, unlimited authority to impose tariffs against any country for any amount for any amount of time. This tariff case is one of a number in which you're fighting the Trump administration. If I'm correct, there are 46 lawsuits to be exact. Some of these aimed at accessing federal funds that have been withheld by the Trump administration. There was another suit over the use of the National Guard in the state of California. Some observers might take a look at the number of lawsuits out there and say that you are using the courts as a way to thwart policies that you simply do not agree with politically. What would you say to that? I think it's interesting that they would draw that conclusion, as opposed to saying, wow, the president is really violating the law a lot

because that's what's happening. And that's all that we look at. It's not partisan. It's a legal question. Is he breaking the law? Do the facts justify our case? Is he hurting our states? And so we only have one position. If he breaks the law, we sue them. If he doesn't break the law, we don't. I think the proof is in the pudding. We've brought 46 cases in 41 weeks, more than one a week. We're winning over 80% of the time, securing temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, permanent final injunctions and judgments in cases. So that means he's breaking the law and that we're right. And we only, you know, look at these cases from a sterile, dispassionate perspective. Is he breaking the law? If the answer is yes, we sue them. And the court's decisions have shown that we're right and that he's breaking the law. Now, as I take stock of all of these suits, they're really all about the use and limits of presidential power. And the Trump administration is really continuing a trend that we've seen politically for decades of the executive branch claiming these broad powers. Explain to me why this case. is different.

This is part of the sort of fringe theory of a unitary executive that the executive branch has expansive power that is not conferred upon it by the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution very clearly has three co-equal branches of government. The president has been acting as if he's a king, a monarch, a tyrant, and the Constitution rejects that fact. And so this tariffs case is an example of the president overreaching, again, trying to seize authority that is not his, trying to take from Congress. their authority, trying to trespass on Congress's constitutionally given authority. And so it requires the court to interpret the law and render an order that says, get back in your lane, Mr. President. You do not have the authority here. You're exercising authority that does not belong to you, belongs to Congress, and you cannot impose tariffs. This is a court that we've seen in the past,

though, the makeup of this particular court that has seemed inclined to preserve a rather muscular identity of the executive power, a muscular understanding of what that looks like. Do you expect this case to be any different? I do. Based on what I heard in the courtroom today, there's definitely some on the court, not all, but some who believe in a more muscular executive branch, but they also read the Constitution, are going to interpret the Constitution as it should be interpreted, and they can clearly read like anyone else can that the Constitution says that Congress has the power to tax and that tariffs are taxes, and that unless clearly delegated to the president, the president cannot exercise that congressional authority. And they had a lot of discussion today about the

plain and ambiguous text, the legislative history, the historical precedent and context, and I think a lot of signs for hope that there's no indication that the president has the authority that he thinks he has. Before I let you go, I do just want to bring this back to the stakes for American households, for American consumers. If the Supreme Court does indeed uphold President Trump's use of emergency powers to impose these tariffs, what does that mean for everyday people, including in your state? Devastating. And it's already been devastating to workers, to families, to small businesses, to moms and pops just trying to survive. Costs have gone up. California is projected to have an economic hit of $25 billion, lose 64,000 jobs. California is the

biggest state in the nation, fourth largest economy in the world. We are the largest importer of any state, the second largest exporter, the largest agriculture exporter, the largest manufacturer. We are an outsized economy, and so these tariffs have an outsized impact on California. And it's about everyday people who deserve better than to have a president who is breaking the law, making their cost of living higher and hurting them. And businesses don't have predictability or certainty. This has been a war on Christmas. The shelves will be empty and or the cost will be much higher. And Americans deserve better than a lawless president making their costs higher in a time when they need their costs. And they deserve their costs to be lowered.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, thank you so much for being here. Thanks for having me, Juana. This episode was produced by Breonna Scott and Erica Ryan with engineering by David Greenberg. It was edited by Courtney Dorney. Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigan. It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Juana Summers.