Foley & Lardner partner Gregory Husisian’s takeaways from oral arguments in a pivotal trade case before the U.S. Supreme Court are highlighted across media.
Husisian noted in Politico how Justice Barrett expressed skepticism over the administration’s interpretation of “regulate” to convey tariff power in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, under which this year’s tariffs have been imposed He added that skepticism of the government’s arguments appeared to be shared among other justices.
The justices, he said, “seemed skeptical regarding the argument that ‘regulating imports’ can mean ‘imposing tariffs,’” noting that the government “had no good response” to Justice Barrett’s question about whether there was any other statute that uses ‘regulate’ to confer tariff authority.
Husisian observed in Law360 how Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas “expanded the playing field” by posing several hypothetical scenarios.
“This seems to be an attempt to convince the other justices that the case could have wide-ranging impacts and is an implicit acknowledgment that within the confines of just the IEEPA tariffs, things don’t look good for the administration,” he commented.
Husisian’s commentary also appeared in SupplyChainDive, ConstructionDive, ManufacturingDive, MedTechDive, and WardsAuto.
(Some subscriptions required)
