case

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s signature plan to impose import taxes on products coming from countries around the world ran into sharp skepticism at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Most of the justices, conservative and liberal, questioned whether the president acting on his own has the power to set large tariffs as a weapon of international trade.

Instead, they voiced the traditional view that the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise taxes, duties and tariffs.

Trump and his lawyers rely on an emergency powers act adopted on a voice vote by Congress in 1977. That measure authorizes sanctions and embargoes, but does not mention “tariffs, duties” or other means of revenue-raising.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he doubted that law could be read so broadly.

The emergency powers law “had never before been used to justify tariffs,” he told D. John Sauer, Trump’s solicitor general. “No one has argued that it does until this particular case.”

Congress has authorized tariffs in other laws, he said, but not this one. Yet, it is “being used for a power to impose tariffs on any product from any country for — in any amount on any product from any country for — in any amount for any length of time.”

Moreover, the Constitution says Congress has the lead role on taxes and tariffs. “The imposition of taxes on Americans … has always been a core power of Congress,” he said.

The tariffs case heard Wednesday is the first major challenge to Trump’s presidential power to be heard by the court. It is also a test of whether the court’s conservative majority is willing to set legal limits on Trump’s executive authority.

Trump has touted these import taxes as crucial to reviving American manufacturing.

But owners of small businesses, farmers and economists are among the critics who say the on-again, off-again import taxes are disrupting business and damaging the economy.

Two lower courts ruled for small-business owners and said Trump had exceeded his authority.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal on a fast-track basis with the aim of ruling in a few months.

In defense of the president and his “Liberation Day” tariffs, Trump’s lawyers argued these import duties involve the president’s power over foreign affairs. They are “regulatory tariffs,” not taxes that raise revenue, he said.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan disagreed.

“It’s a congressional power, not a presidential power, to tax,” Sotomayor said. “You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”

Imposing a tariff “is a taxing power which is delegated by the Constitution to Congress,” Kagan said.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch may hold the deciding vote, and he said he was wary of upholding broad claims of presidential power that rely on old and vague laws.

The court’s conservative majority, including Gorsuch, struck down several far-reaching Biden administration regulations on climate change and student forgiveness because they were not clearly authorized by Congress.

Both Roberts and Gorsuch said the same theory may apply here. Gorsuch said he was skeptical of the claim that the president had the power to impose taxes based on his belief that the nation faces a global emergency.

In the future, “could the President impose a 50% tariff on gas-powered cars and auto parts to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad of climate change?” he asked.

Yes, Sauer replied, “It’s very likely that could be done.”

Congress had the lawmaking power, Gorsuch said, and presidents should not feel free to take away the taxing power “from the people’s representatives.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said she was struggling to understand what Congress meant in the emergency powers law when it said the president may “regulate” importation.

She agreed that the law did not mention taxes and tariffs that would raise revenue, but some judges then saw it as allowing the authority to impose duties or tariffs.

Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Samuel A. Alito Jr. appeared to be leaning against the challenge to the president’s tariffs.

Kavanaugh pointed to a round of tariffs imposed by President Nixon in 1971, and he said Congress later adopted its emergency powers act without clearly rejecting that authority.

A former White House lawyer, Kavanaugh said it would be unusual for the president to have the full power to bar imports from certain countries, but not the lesser power to impose tariffs.

Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court’s six Republican appointees have voted repeatedly to set aside orders from judges who had temporarily blocked the president’s policies and initiatives.

Although they have not explained most of their temporary emergency rulings, the conservatives have said the president has broad executive authority over federal agencies and on matters of foreign affairs.

But Wednesday, the justices did not sound split along the usual ideological lines.

The court’s ruling is not likely to be the final word on tariffs, however. Several other past laws allow the president to impose temporary tariffs for reasons of national security.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal judge on Wednesday ordered prosecutors in the criminal case of former FBI Director James Comey to produce a trove of materials from the investigation, saying he was concerned that the Justice Department’s position had been to “indict first and investigate later.”

Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick instructed prosecutors to produce by the end of the day on Thursday grand jury materials and other evidence that investigators seized during the investigation. The order followed arguments in which Comey’s attorneys said they were at a disadvantage because they had not been able to review materials that were gathered years ago.

Comey, who attended the hearing but did not speak, is charged with lying to Congress in 2020 in a case filed days after President Trump appeared to urge his attorney general to prosecute the former FBI director and other perceived political enemies. He has pleaded not guilty, and his lawyers have argued that it’s a vindictive prosecution brought at the direction of the Republican president and must be dismissed.

At issue at Wednesday’s hearing were communications seized by investigators who in 2019 and 2020 executed search warrants of devices belonging to Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor and close friend of Comey who had also served as a special government employee at the FBI.

Richman factors into the case because prosecutors say that Comey had encouraged him to engage with reporters about matters related to the FBI and that Comey therefore lied to Congress when he denied having authorized anyone at the FBI to serve as an anonymous source. But Comey’s lawyers say he was explicitly responding to a question about whether he had authorized former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to serve as an anonymous source.

Comey’s lawyers told the judge they had not reviewed the materials taken from Richman and thus could not know what information was privileged.

“We’re going to fix that, and we’re going to fix that today,” the judge said.

Comey’s indictment came days after Trump in a social media post called on Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to take action against Comey and other longtime foes of the president. The indictment was brought by Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide and Trump lawyer who was installed as U.S. attorney after the longtime prosecutor who had been overseeing the investigation resigned under administration pressure to indict Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The Justice Department in court papers earlier this week defended the president’s social media post, contending it reflects “legitimate prosecutorial motive” and is no basis to dismiss the indictment.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Throwing a sandwich at a federal agent turned Sean Charles Dunn into a symbol of resistance against President Trump’s law-enforcement surge in the nation’s capital. This week, federal prosecutors are trying to persuade a jury of fellow Washington, D.C., residents that Dunn simply broke the law.

That could be a tough sell for the government in a city that has chafed against Trump’s federal takeover, which is entering its third month. A grand jury refused to indict Dunn on a felony assault count before U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro’s office opted to charge him instead with a misdemeanor.

Securing a trial conviction could prove to be equally challenging for Justice Department prosecutors in Washington, where murals glorifying Dunn’s sandwich toss popped up virtually overnight.

Before jury selection started Monday, the judge presiding over Dunn’s trial seemed to acknowledge how unusual it is for a case like this to be heard in federal court. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, said he expects the trial to last no more than two days “because it’s the simplest case in the world.”

A video that went viral on social media captured Dunn hurling his subway-style sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent outside a nightclub on the night of Aug. 10. That same weekend, Trump announced his deployment of hundreds of National Guard troops and federal agents to assist with police patrols in Washington.

When Dunn approached a group of CBP agents who were in front of the club, which was hosting a “Latin Night,” he called them “fascists” and “racists” and chanted “shame” toward them. An observer’s video captured Dunn throwing a sandwich at an agent’s chest.

“Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” Dunn shouted, according to police.

Dunn ran away but was apprehended. He was released from custody but rearrested when a team of armed federal agents in riot gear raided his home. The White House posted a highly produced “propaganda” video of the raid on its official X account, Dunn’s lawyers said. They noted that Dunn had offered to surrender to police before the raid.

Dunn worked as an international affairs specialist in the Justice Department’s criminal division. After Dunn’s arrest, U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi announced his firing in a social media post that referred to him as “an example of the Deep State.”

Before trial, Dunn’s lawyers urged the judge to dismiss the case for what they allege is a vindictive and selective prosecution. They argued that the posts by Bondi and the White House prove Dunn was impermissibly targeted for his political speech.

Julia Gatto, one of Dunn’s lawyers, questioned why Trump’s Justice Department is prosecuting Dunn after the Republican president issued pardons and ordered the dismissal of assault cases stemming from a mob’s attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“It’s an obvious answer,” Gatto said during a hearing last Thursday. “The answer is they have different politics. And that’s selective prosecution.”

Prosecutors countered that Dunn’s political expressions don’t make him immune from prosecution for assaulting the agent.

“The defendant is being prosecuted for the obvious reason that he was recorded throwing a sandwich at a federal officer at point-blank range,” they wrote.

Dunn is charged with assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating and interfering with a federal officer. Dozens of Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol were convicted of felonies for assaulting or interfering with police during the Jan. 6 attack. Trump pardoned or ordered the dismissal of charges for all of them.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.