Verdict with Ted Cruz: Detailed Prediction: Trump’s Tariffs before the Supreme Court-What’s Going to Happen

In the latest episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz, Senator Ted Cruz and Ben Ferguson provide a comprehensive analysis of Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, the Supreme Court case examining whether President Trump lawfully imposed tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The decision—expected soon—has significant implications for executive power, congressional authority, and U.S. trade policy.

How the Tariff Dispute Reached the Supreme Court

President Trump imposed over $133 billion in tariffs after invoking IEEPA, which authorizes the President to regulate importation during a declared national emergency. However, the statute never explicitly mentions “tariffs,” prompting small‑business plaintiffs to challenge Trump’s interpretation.

Two major legal doctrines frame the dispute:

1. The Non‑Delegation Principle

This constitutional principle limits how much lawmaking power Congress can delegate to the executive branch.

The plaintiffs argue that Congress cannot silently pass tariff‑imposing power to the President without explicit, narrow instructions—especially since tariffs constitute taxation.

2. The Major Questions Doctrine

Under this doctrine, the Supreme Court requires clear authorization from Congress whenever the executive branch seeks to act on issues of vast economic or political significance.

Because tariffs reshape international trade, markets, and consumer costs, plaintiffs contend that IEEPA lacks the specificity required for such sweeping action.

Cruz emphasizes that the core tension lies between Congress’s Article I taxing authority and the President’s Article II foreign‑policy powers.

How the Supreme Court Approached the Case During Oral Arguments

Senator Cruz provides a justice‑by‑justice breakdown, interpreting each line of questioning based on long‑observed judicial patterns.

Chief Justice John Roberts

Roberts framed the issue squarely around taxation, questioning who bears the cost of tariffs and whether the executive can impose them without undermining Congress’s constitutional role.

Cruz notes Roberts’ skepticism but predicts institutional caution will guide his final vote.

Justice Elena Kagan

Kagan centered her analysis on delegation and raised concerns about granting the President unlimited tariff authority without explicit statutory limits.

She argued that tariffs are “quintessential taxing powers,” reserved for Congress.

Justices Neil Gorsuch & Amy Coney Barrett

Both raised concerns about the breadth of presidential emergency authority:

• Gorsuch asked what limits would remain if the President could impose tariffs for virtually any asserted foreign threat.
• Barrett questioned why Congress did not explicitly authorize tariffs if it intended to delegate that power.

Cruz suggests these two justices represent the most likely conservative defections.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh

Kavanaugh emphasized historical precedent supporting broad congressional delegations in foreign affairs.

He pointed to cases affirming significant executive discretion in regulating foreign commerce.

Justices Clarence Thomas & Samuel Alito

Thomas focused on historical practice, noting that tariffs have long been tools of regulating foreign trade.

Alito highlighted reliance interests, questioning what would happen to the billions already collected if the Court invalidated the tariffs.

Cruz’s Prediction: A 5–4 Decision Upholding Trump’s Tariffs

Cruz predicts the Supreme Court will uphold Trump’s authority by a 5–4 margin, with Chief Justice Roberts likely writing the majority opinion.

Probable majority coalition:

• Chief Justice Roberts
• Justice Thomas
• Justice Alito
• Justice Kavanaugh
• Justice Barrett or Justice Gorsuch

Cruz argues that the Court will ultimately avoid upending foreign policy mechanisms that are already deeply embedded in U.S. diplomacy.

He compares this to Roberts’ decision in the Affordable Care Act case, where institutional stability outweighed abstract legal objections.

What the Ruling Means for Presidential Power and Trade Policy

A ruling upholding Trump’s tariffs would expand the President’s practical leverage in trade negotiations. Cruz highlights several successful examples of Trump’s tariff strategy, including forcing Mexico to honor a decades‑old water‑treaty obligation critical to Texas.

Even if the Court rules against Trump under IEEPA, Cruz notes that the President could rely on alternative statutory authorities:

• Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974
• Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962
• Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974

Thus, the decision will shape—but not eliminate—the President’s ability to influence trade policy.

Political and Strategic Implications

Ben Ferguson stresses the political stakes:

A win would validate Trump’s trade strategy and undercut critics who predicted economic harm. A loss, though a legal setback, would not cut off the administration’s ability to impose tariffs using other statutory tools.

Cruz concludes that this ruling could set a significant precedent defining presidential authority, trade leverage, and the balance of constitutional power for years to come.

👉 Listen and Subscribe to Verdict with Ted Cruz

Want to hear the full discussion and stay informed on the issues that matter most? Subscribe to the Verdict with Ted Cruz podcast today on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. New episodes drop every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday—don’t miss out on expert analysis and insider perspectives from Senator Ted Cruz and Ben Ferguson.

Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.