 |
| Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images |
Indeed, the “gratuitous” paragraph Greenhouse excerpted, from Roberts’ majority opinion rejecting Trump’s asserted tariff power, reveals at least “vexation.” Here are several such lines from that paragraph and the preceding one:
[T]he President imposed a
25% duty on most Canadian and Mexican imports and a 10% duty on most Chinese
imports. [He also] imposed a duty “on all imports from all trading partners” of
at least 10%. Dozens of nations faced higher rates. And these tariffs applied
notwithstanding any extant trade agreements.
One month after imposing the 10% drug trafficking tariffs on Chinese goods, he increased the rate to 20%. One month later, he removed a statutory exemption for Chinese goods under $800. Less than a week after imposing the reciprocal tariffs, the President increased the rate on Chinese goods from 34% to 84%. The very next day, he increased the rate further still, to 125%...The President has also shifted sets of goods into and out of the reciprocal tariff framework (exempting from reciprocal tariffs beef, fruits, coffee, tea, spices, and some fertilizers). And he has issued a variety of other adjustments. See, e.g., extending “the suspension of heightened reciprocal tariffs” on Chinese imports.
[Learning
Resources, Inc. v. Trump (2026).]
The obvious--whether actually gratuitous--point
is that this is capricious conduct of an erratic man.
But the tariffs case was hardly the first time that
Chief Justice Roberts has shown “acute concern” about Trump. A notable illustration
from back in Trump’s first term was Roberts’ opinion for the Court in the
Muslim Ban—I mean “Travel Ban”—case. While his majority opinion upheld Trump’s
immigration restrictions at issue in that case, Roberts took pains to point
out that his opinion was not an endorsement of “a particular President,”
but about “the authority of the Presidency itself.”
Even then, Roberts highlighted the argument that “this
President’s words strike at fundamental standards of respect and tolerance, in
violation of our constitutional tradition.” And though he emphasized that
the constitutional question in the case was "not whether to denounce
the statements,” Roberts’ denunciation was clear.
In a few paragraphs, perhaps as “gratuitous” as the
ones in the Tariffs case, Roberts recapped many of Trump’s ugly statements
about Muslims. Here’s part of what Roberts included in his opinion:
[W]hile a candidate on the campaign trail, the President published a “Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration” that called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on”…Then-candidate Trump also stated that “Islam hates us” and asserted that the United States was “having problems with Muslims coming into the country.” Shortly after being elected, when asked whether violence in Europe had affected his plans to “ban Muslim immigration,” the President replied, “You know my plans. All along, I’ve been proven to be right” …[O]ne of the President’s campaign advisers explained that when the President “first announced [the first proposed ban], he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally’…[A]fter issuing [the first replacement order], the President expressed regret that his prior order had been “watered down” and called for a “much tougher version” of his “Travel Ban.” Shortly before the release of the Proclamation, he stated that the “travel ban . . . should be far larger, tougher, and more specific,” but “stupidly that would not be politically correct” …[Thereafter,] the President retweeted links to three anti-Muslim propaganda videos.
[Trump
v. Hawaii (2018).]
Roberts immediately contrasted Trump’s conduct with
that of other presidents who used their power to speak inspiringly to the
Nation “to espouse the principles of religious freedom and tolerance on
which this Nation was founded.” Notably, he gave examples of presidents,
beginning with Washington, who spoke out against bigotry against Jews and
Muslims. But then, pointedly, he remarked that “Presidents [have] performed
unevenly in living up to those inspiring words.” Trump, anyone?
Beyond his apparent contempt for the man now occupying
the White House for a second time, Roberts has also written opinions for the
Court or voted in support of such opinions that rejected Trump’s pet policies
or his defenses in cases against him. Despite the conventional wisdom
otherwise, Roberts and his Court have actually stymied Trump and his administration
numerous times in recent years, in addition to the tariffs case.
