Neal Katyal on Trump's Tariffs, Constitutional Law, and His Legal Career

From Academia to Appellate Law

• 💡 Neal Katyal's initial career plan was to be a history professor, inspired by a Dartmouth professor who taught him to write and think.
• 🎯 He was advised to pursue law school instead, which offered a more stable career path and similar intellectual pursuits.
• 🚀 A pivotal moment was the September 11th attacks, which shifted his focus from theoretical law to practical litigation, starting with helping first responders and then challenging the constitutionality of military trials at Guantanamo Bay.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

• 🏛️ Katyal successfully argued Moore v. Harper before the Supreme Court, challenging the independent state legislature theory and safeguarding democratic election processes.
• ⚖️ He also defended the Voting Rights Act in 2010, arguing against the notion that an African-American president was sufficient proof that discrimination in voting had ended.
• 📈 Katyal notes a shift in the Supreme Court, observing that justices often come in with more predetermined positions compared to when he first began arguing cases.

Challenging Trump's Tariffs

• 💰 In Vox Selections v. Donald Trump, Katyal represented small businesses challenging the legality of President Trump's global tariffs.
• 📜 The appeals court ruled that most of Trump's tariffs were unconstitutional, stating that the president cannot impose such broad tariffs without explicit authorization from Congress.
• 📌 The court emphasized that the "emergency" clause cited by the administration was not applicable, as the trade deficits were persistent and not unusual or extraordinary.

Constitutional Separation of Powers

• ⚖️ Katyal views the tariff case not as a rebalancing of powers, but as a return to the founders' original concept where Congress makes laws, the president enforces them, and courts review legality.
• 🚀 He highlights the Major Questions Doctrine, which requires Congress to explicitly grant significant powers to the president, rather than hiding them in vague terms, a principle applied to strike down various presidential initiatives.
• 🎨 The Trump administration's use of the EPA statute for imposing tariffs was noted as creative but ultimately unfaithful to the original text and meaning of the law.