President Donald Trump’s decision Sunday to reverse course on attending a landmark Supreme Court case hearing could very well be due to the president hoping to avoid an "awkward environment” that could end up jeopardizing his trade policy, The New York Times reported Monday.
In mid-October, Trump floated the idea of attending the Supreme Court’s hearing scheduled for Wednesday where justices will rule on the president’s authority to impose tariffs, a case he’s called “one of the most important in the history of the country.” He ultimately decided against it, however, writing Sunday that he did “not want to distract” the court.
According to Harvard Law School Professor Jack Goldsmith, however, Trump’s decision not to attend the hearing could very well have been due to the president learning that his attendance – which would have been the first such instance in history of a sitting president to attend oral arguments – could have backfired spectacularly.
“I doubt the court wants to be perceived as bowing down to him,” Goldsmith said, speaking with the Times. “[If Trump did attend,] it’s just going to make it harder for them to rule for him.”
Trump has painted a grim picture for the country should the Supreme Court ultimately rule against his tariff policy, warning on Sunday that were his authority to impose sweeping tariffs revoked, the United States “could be reduced to almost Third World status.”
As to how the Supreme Court may rule in the case, Goldsmith said it was impossible to tell.
“At the end of this term, we’ll see wins and losses for Trump on presidential power,” Goldsmith told the Times. “This is the case I think is the closest, so I don’t know which way it will cut.”
While the authority to impose tariffs rests with Congress, Trump has argued that a 1977 law – the International Emergency Economic Powers Act – grants his office broad authority to impose tariffs during emergencies, declaring the United States’ trade deficits with other nations to be said emergencies.