Supreme Court Inconsistently Dismissed Nixon Precedent in Trump Tariff Case
Source: Josh Blackman. "What About Nixon?." February 23, 2026. reason.com
The Gist
The author argues that the Supreme Court unfairly ignored Nixon's tariff precedent when ruling against Trump's tariffs. He believes the Court dismissed valid legal precedent either due to inconsistent reasoning or because they didn't want to rely on Nixon's controversial presidency.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's dismissal of Nixon's tariff precedent in the Trump tariff case reflects inconsistent legal reasoning and possibly political bias rather than sound jurisprudential principles
Premises
- President Nixon imposed tariffs using the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), which were upheld by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- The Supreme Court relegated Nixon's precedent to a footnote and dismissed it as insufficient to establish precedent despite its legal validity
- Justice Kavanaugh mentioned Nixon nearly thirty times and argued the Court was trying to 'dodge' the Nixon precedent
- Nixon's tariffs were actually substantial in scope - 10 percent on virtually all imports from every country worldwide, contradicting the Court's characterization as 'limited'
- The Court's treatment of Nixon appears inconsistent with how precedent is normally evaluated in constitutional law
Assumptions
- One presidential precedent should be sufficient to establish a practice, especially when judicially upheld
- The Supreme Court should apply consistent standards when evaluating historical precedents
- Political considerations about Nixon's reputation may be influencing legal reasoning
- The major questions doctrine should be applied consistently across different presidents