The legal battle over President Trump's tariffs and President Biden's student loan forgiveness both hinge on the "major questions doctrine." This Supreme Court principle asserts that if the executive branch exercises a power with vast economic and political impact based on ambiguous statutory language, the Court will rule against it, demanding explicit authorization from Congress.
The Fed kept interest rates higher for months due to economic uncertainty caused by Donald Trump's tariff policies. This directly increased borrowing costs for consumers on credit cards, car loans, and variable-rate mortgages, creating a tangible financial impact from political actions.
Former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano reveals DACA was initiated immediately after Congress failed to pass the Dream Act. It wasn't a proactive policy but a reactive measure, using executive power to solve a problem the legislative branch couldn't, highlighting how executive action can stem from legislative paralysis.
While the US exports less to Canada by volume, its exports (electronics, pharma) have far higher margins and shareholder value multiples than Canadian exports (lumber, oil). Therefore, for every dollar of trade disrupted by tariffs, the US loses significantly more economic value, making the policy self-defeating.
The proposal to levy tariffs and then issue rebate checks is economically nonsensical. It creates massive bureaucratic leakage, making it more efficient to simply not have the tariffs. Furthermore, the policy uncertainty paralyzes businesses, creating non-economic costs that are more damaging than the direct financial impact of the tariffs.
Janet Napolitano argues that recent Supreme Court doctrines presume a level of legislative clarity and capability that doesn't exist in modern politics. By expecting Congress to legislate with extreme precision on all major issues, the Court ignores institutional dysfunction and creates a standard the legislative branch cannot meet.
Costco is suing the Trump administration over tariffs, not just as a legal strategy, but as a public relations move. It signals to customers that Costco will fight anyone, even the president, to uphold its core value proposition of saving people money.
To fix the student debt crisis, universities should be financially on the hook for the first portion of any loan default (e.g., $20,000). This "first loss" position would compel them to underwrite the economic viability of their own degrees, creating a powerful market check against pushing students into overpriced and low-value programs.
The impending 107% tariff on Italian pasta is based on legally sound anti-dumping laws targeting a specific product. This is distinct from Trump's broader, country-specific tariffs, which were enacted via a national emergency declaration and are more likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court. This signals a key legal risk difference for global businesses.
The Suspension Clause, which allows for suspending the right to challenge unlawful detention, is located in Article 1. This placement explicitly assigns the power to Congress, not the President, serving as a critical check on executive overreach during emergencies.
President Trump's proposed $2,000 "tariff dividend" checks had only a 12% chance of passing but still caused the stock market to rebound. This demonstrates that the mere announcement of a pro-market policy can be a powerful tool to influence investor sentiment, achieving an intended effect without ever being enacted into law.