In a scathing dissent on Friday, Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed his strong disapproval of the Supreme Court's decision to strike down former President Donald Trump's emergency tariffs. Kavanaugh, who was appointed by Trump, argued that the ruling was flawed and argued that it erroneously limited the scope of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which allows the president to regulate imports in response to national emergencies. He contended that tariffs are a reasonable method of control and should be viewed similarly to other means of import regulation like quotas and embargoes.

Kavanaugh criticized the 6-3 majority for what he described as a 'cherry-picked' interpretation of how the IEEPA could be applied. He articulated a textualist perspective, emphasizing that the law does permit a variety of actions related to trade regulation, and outlined how tariffs, being less severe than outright bans or quotas, should qualify as a legitimate tool under the same statutory provisions. The justice's views reflect a broader debate about presidential power in economic affairs, particularly regarding unilaterally imposed tariffs and trade policy.

The dissent comes in the context of previous actions taken by Trump, who bypassed Congress to impose tariffs globally by invoking the IEEPA. Kavanaugh's comments not only aim to counter the majority's rationale but also highlight an ongoing contention within the court about the expansiveness of executive power in trade and economic issues. His dissent underscores the legal tensions surrounding tariffs and could influence future considerations of how similar executive actions are evaluated by the judiciary.