I'm John Bachelor, Professor Jonathan Adler writing at Civitas Outlook for Civitas Institute

on the most recent decision,

learning resources versus the Trump administration about tariffs.

The six vote carried the day rejecting the president's ambitions.

The three votes, however, divided most compellingly, and Justice Kavanaugh, who heretofore has been considered

a conservative government, uh, justice, dissented from the decision on the basis of he

believes the president does have the power to impose tariffs. And then he pointed to other

parts of the law from Congress. I think the particular one

was a 122 that demonstrate the president can use tariffs. Is that a persuasive case that he made?

Because it looks to have given pointers to the administration where to go next.

Well, there are a couple things there.

I mean, one, Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Alito and Thomas, argued that the way

we interpret statutes that implicate the president's foreign affairs powers should be different,

that we should expect Congress to sweep more broadly and be less precise because we generally

expect the president to be the representative of the country on the foreign stage.

And so therefore, while he noted his agreement with the general approach to interpreting

statutes articulated by the chief justice, he felt that this statute in this context meant

the president should have more leeway. But then, as you note, he pointed out that

there are many other statutes through which the president has the authority to impose tariffs,

but there is an important catch. There are these other statutes. They do delegate to the president,

the authority to impose tariffs,

but they often require either the making of particular findings before the tariffs can be

...