In Tariffs Dissent, Clarence Thomas Embraced a Dangerous Theory of Executive Power
When the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Learning Resources v. Trump, Justice Neil Gorsuch highlighted a particularly troubling aspect of President Donald Trump's case for unilateral tariff-making power. Under the administration's legal theory, Gorsuch asked Solicitor General John Sauer, "what would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, for that matter, declare war, to the president?"
Thankfully, Trump lost. But one of the three justices who supported Trump in dissent declared himself perfectly content with the dangerous idea that Congress could entirely surrender constitutionally granted powers to the president.
As he has often done before, Justice Clarence Thomas penned a solo dissent in Learning Resources v. Trump that staked out a legal position far beyond anything embraced by his other colleagues. In the tariffs case, that far-out position was the argument that Congress "has many powers that are not subject to the nondelegation doctrine."
The nondelegation doctrine says that Congress may delegate its legislative authority to the president only under certain limited circumstances. Those limits are there to enforce the constitutional separation of powers.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/tariffs-dissent-clarence-thomas-embraced-120008601.html