Justice Neil Gorsuch sharply criticized his fellow Supreme Court justices for what he described as inconsistent reasoning when evaluating expansive claims of presidential authority made by Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
Although Gorsuch joined the 6–3 majority ruling that invalidated most of Trump’s tariffs on Friday, he issued a separate 46-page opinion expressing concern over how the Court applied its own precedents. He suggested that certain justices appeared to interpret the same legal principles differently depending on which administration was involved, calling the situation “an interesting turn of events.”
Central to Gorsuch’s critique was the “major questions doctrine,” a legal theory holding that presidents cannot take sweeping actions without clear congressional authorization. The conservative-led Court relied heavily on this doctrine during Biden’s presidency, notably to block broad initiatives such as student loan forgiveness.
However, the Court’s decision on Trump’s tariffs revealed divisions among the conservative justices. Gorsuch, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett formed part of the majority, concluding in part that Trump’s tariffs required congressional approval. Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito dissented.
Legal scholars noted the visible fractures within the Court. Robin Effron, a law professor at Fordham University, said the ruling underscored “significant internal dissension.” She observed that Roberts’ 21-page majority opinion appeared crafted to secure broad consensus but instead highlighted deep disagreements.
Even among justices who agreed with the outcome, not all endorsed Roberts’ discussion of the major questions doctrine, raising uncertainty about its future application. Meanwhile, the Court’s three liberal justices, who have previously criticized the doctrine, again declined to embrace it despite siding with the majority against Trump.
Gorsuch pointed to these shifting positions in his opinion. He noted that past critics of the doctrine did not oppose its use in the tariffs case, while some justices who previously supported it dissented from its application.
Several justices responded directly to Gorsuch’s remarks. Justice Elena Kagan, in a pointed footnote, rejected the suggestion that she had quietly adopted the doctrine. “Given his apparent desire for converts,” Kagan wrote, “I almost regret to inform him that I am not one.”
Some legal experts found Gorsuch’s observations persuasive. Jonathan Adler of William & Mary Law School said it was “hard to square” Kagan’s stance with her earlier opinions. In a 2022 climate case involving Biden’s policies, Kagan had argued that the doctrine seemed to “magically appear” when convenient for the conservative majority.
Others saw contradictions among dissenting conservatives. Ilya Somin of George Mason University, who participated in the legal challenge, argued that Justice Kavanaugh’s reasoning — which suggested the doctrine may not apply to tariffs due to foreign affairs concerns — created an “arbitrary exception.”
Despite the disagreements, Adler emphasized the broader significance of the ruling. He said the decision demonstrated the Court’s willingness to check executive power, even under Trump.
“Regardless of how the doctrine is labeled,” Adler said, “the Court made clear it sees an important role in policing the limits of authority Congress grants the executive branch.”
