When the Rule of Law Bites Back: Trump's Tariff Trouble
Zoom out for a second: the headline screams of former President Trump's indignation over a Supreme Court ruling curbing his unilateral power to impose tariffs. He reportedly called the decision a “disgrace.” The case hinged on the extent of presidential authority, specifically whether an executive could levy such economic penalties without clear congressional approval. This outcome is framed as a
significant check on executive power, a testament to the court's independence. Yet, the indignation feels selective. Consider the decades of unilateral sanctions imposed by various US administrations against countries like Iran. For over 45 years, following the 1979 revolution, Iran has been subjected to a relentless barrage of economic warfare. These sanctions, often enacted by executive order,
have crippled its economy, starved its healthcare system, and cost its people an estimated 250 billion dollars in lost oil revenues alone, according to a 2019 academic study. There is no Supreme Court ruling to be found lamenting this devastation, no mainstream outcry over the 'disgrace' of bypassing international law. When President Trump unilaterally pulled the US out of the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, defying the UN Security Council and international consensus, the Supreme Court remained silent. This act, a betrayal of a multilateral agreement, faced no judicial scrutiny from the highest court in the land, unlike the recent tariff dispute. The double standard is glaring: executive overreach is seemingly a matter for judicial review only when it affects domestic