Supreme Court conservatives were united against Biden. Here’s why they split against
When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, many Americans expected ideological lines to stay predictable. After all, conservatives on the Court had largely stood together when limiting President Joe Biden’s policies.
So what changed?
Why did conservative justices who were united against Biden suddenly divide when it came to Trump?
Let’s break it down in simple, clear terms.
The Big Question: What Was This Case Really About?
At the center of the ruling was President Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose massive tariffs — duties the Court said amounted to a $134 billion tax on American consumers.
Trump relied on a 1977 emergency powers law to justify those tariffs. But a majority of the Court concluded that Congress had not clearly authorized such sweeping economic action.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote plainly:
“When Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints. It did neither here.”
That sentence became the backbone of the ruling.
What Is the “Major Questions Doctrine”?
To understand the conservative split, you need to understand one legal theory: the major questions doctrine.
The major questions doctrine is a legal principle stating that Congress must clearly authorize a president to take actions involving major economic or political significance. Courts will not assume broad powers from vague laws.
In simple terms:
If a president wants to take big action, Congress must say so clearly.
This doctrine has been used frequently in recent years.
For example:
- In 2023, the Court blocked Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan.
- During the COVID-19 pandemic, it rejected a nationwide eviction moratorium.
In those cases, conservatives were united.
So Why the Split Over Trump?
Here’s where things get interesting.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, wrote a lengthy opinion defending a strong version of the doctrine.
But three conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh — dissented and argued the doctrine didn’t apply in this situation.
Meanwhile, Justice Amy Coney Barrett disagreed with Gorsuch’s interpretation of how forcefully the doctrine should be applied.
Even more surprising? The Court’s liberal justices joined the majority in striking down Trump’s tariffs — but without heavily relying on the doctrine they’ve often criticized.
As Gorsuch noted:
“It is an interesting turn of events.”
That may be an understatement.
What’s Really Behind the Division?
There are three deeper reasons behind this split:
1 Different Views on Presidential Power
Some conservatives believe the president needs flexibility when Congress uses broad language in statutes. Others insist that major economic decisions require explicit authorization.
2 Constitutional Interpretation
Roberts emphasized institutional caution. He signaled that the Court must remain skeptical when presidents claim sweeping powers, regardless of party.
3 The Doctrine Itself Is Controversial
Critics argue the major questions doctrine is “judge-made” and inconsistently applied. Even within conservative circles, there’s disagreement about how strong or flexible it should be.
Legal analyst Steve Vladeck noted that the internal conservative debate may shape future presidencies more than it affects Trump himself.
Why This Matters Beyond Trump
This case isn’t just about tariffs. It’s about presidential authority.
The ruling signals that:
- The Court may not automatically defer to executive power.
- Conservative justices are not always unified.
- The major questions doctrine is still evolving.
For future presidents — Republican or Democrat — this means relying on old, vaguely written statutes could become much riskier.
The Bigger Picture
The Supreme Court has often appeared divided along predictable ideological lines. But this decision shows something more complex.
When it came to Biden, conservatives used the major questions doctrine aggressively.
When it came to Trump, they couldn’t even agree on how it works.
That tension could redefine how executive power is interpreted for decades.
And that’s far bigger than tariffs.
#SupremeCourt #TrumpTariffs #MajorQuestionsDoctrine #ExecutivePower #SCOTUSDecision