1. United States
2. Mass.
3. Letter

On Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 6–3 decision rejecting President Donald Trump’s attempt to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping global tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the statutory language could not support such extraordinary authority. The majority relied on the “major questions” doctrine — the same principle used in Biden v. Nebraska — which requires clear congressional authorization for policies of vast economic and political significance. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in concurrence, emphasized that the Constitution “lodges the Nation’s lawmaking powers in Congress alone,” and that bypassing the legislative process undermines the very structure designed to protect liberty. That should have been the end of it. Instead, the president escalated — personally attacking justices, questioning their patriotism, and pivoting immediately to a new 10–15% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That provision was designed for genuine balance-of-payments crises, not routine trade disputes. It allows tariffs for only 150 days absent congressional approval, and even its applicability here is legally questionable. This is no longer merely a trade policy debate. It is a separation-of-powers crisis. If the executive branch can move from one statute to another each time the courts intervene — while publicly attacking the judiciary — then Congress’s Article I authority over taxation becomes optional in practice. The Court has done its job under Article III. It is now Congress’s responsibility to defend its own constitutional role. There are additional unresolved issues, including whether unlawfully collected tariff revenues — reportedly totaling tens of billions of dollars — must be refunded. That question demands oversight and transparency. More broadly, this decision may influence upcoming cases involving executive overreach in other domains. The “major questions” doctrine cuts both ways. If Congress does not clarify and defend its powers now, it risks further erosion of legislative authority in future disputes. I urge you to: • Publicly affirm that Supreme Court rulings must be respected and implemented. • Conduct immediate oversight hearings on the administration’s use of Section 122. • Clarify statutory limits on emergency economic authorities. • Reassert Congress’s exclusive power over taxation and tariffs. • Ensure transparency regarding tariff revenues collected under unlawful authority. The legislative process can be slow and imperfect. But as Justice Gorsuch noted, its deliberative design ensures stability, predictability, and shared responsibility — the very qualities markets and citizens rely upon. When the Court draws a constitutional line, Congress must hold it. The integrity of our constitutional system depends on it.