Brian Laird on WNYC, oral arguments at the Supreme Court over the legal basis of the Trump

administration's tariff policies. Since the start of Trump's second term, as many of you know,

the president has made tariffs central to his strategy

to raise revenue for the country, that's one reason,

but also bring manufacturers back to the United States.

That's the one he generally leans on,

but also, as many of you already know,

to put pressure on the leaders of both

friendly and adversarial nations alike, to do whatever he wants them to do, and not just on

trade, but to bend to his will on many kinds of things, even domestic politics in their own

countries, where the tariffs are in effect just a fine for not obeying in advance.

But the legal foundation for these tariffs is a question.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs explicitly.

Trump invoked emergency powers under a 1977 law that has never before been used to impose tariffs in which he argues that

Congress delegated tariff powers to the president.

Now, during nearly three hours of oral argument yesterday, the court appeared deeply concerned

with Trump's reliance on this law, with even several members of the court's conservative

wing picking apart the administration's

position in a case that could have sweeping implications for the economy and also democracy,

particularly presidential power. We're going to hear a little of Justice Gorsuch. We're going to

hear a little of Chief Justice Roberts as joining me now with analysis of the oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court is Aziz Huck,

Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School and author of The Rule of Law,

...