The United States Supreme Court delivered the executive branch a long-overdue civics lesson. In a 6-3 ruling on Feb. 20, the Court dismantled President Trump’s attempt to use “emergency” powers as a rationale for imposing sweeping tax hikes on American consumers and businesses buying goods from abroad. The president invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 which grants presidents powers to respond to “unusual and extraordinary” threats.

The president declared the country’s persistent trade deficit — meaning Americans buy more goods from abroad than people abroad buy goods from America — and the flow of illegal drugs into the country as “unusual and extraordinary” threats allowing him to impose tariffs.

How taxing Americans more for buying sofas from Europe was a sensible response to keep Americans safe from “unusual and extraordinary” threats didn’t make much sense on its face, but it also didn’t make sense under the law.

Under IEEPA, the president has the powers to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit ... importation or exportation.”

Nowhere included in that is the explicit power to impose taxes on imports.

“While taxes may accomplish regulatory ends, it does not follow that the power to regulate includes the power to tax as a means of regulation,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the court. “Indeed, when Congress addresses both the power to regulate and the power to tax, it does so separately and expressly. That it did not do so here is strong evidence that ‘regulate’ in IEEPA does not include taxation.”

In other words, one just needed to read IEEPA to realize the president had no such authority.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion, argued that tariff authorities ought to go through the proper legislative process: “Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man.”

It’s a basic civics lesson that all Americans should take to heart, including those in the Trump administration. Perhaps the administration can review segments of “Schoolhouse Rock!” if they’re short on time and want to catch up on how American government is supposed to work.

Naturally, the president was upset, saying he was “ashamed of certain members of the court.”

“They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think. It’s a small movement,” he told reporters after the ruling.

Trump then announced he would impose 10% tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. “We have alternatives, great alternatives,” Trump said, eager to tax the American people. “Could be more money. We’ll take in more money and we’ll be a lot stronger for it.”

Ultimately, as long as Trump is president and Congress continues enabling his behavior, damage will continue to be done to global trade and the pocketbooks of the American people.

We concur with Cato Institute trade scholar Clark Packard when he writes, “The Court has done its job, reminding the executive branch that unilaterally declared emergencies cannot erase the separation of powers. Now Congress must do its job and circumscribe the president’s remaining tariff authorities before they’re abused in turn.”