U.S. Supreme Court ruling underscores judicial independence

Feb. 22 (Asia Today) -- A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs has drawn global attention not only for its trade implications but also for what it reveals about the independence of the American judiciary.

In a 6-3 ruling Thursday, the court found that tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act violated Congress's exclusive constitutional authority to levy taxes and duties under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined three liberal justices and two conservatives - Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both appointed by Trump - in the majority opinion declaring the tariffs unconstitutional.

The decision opens the door for companies and importers to seek refunds of billions of dollars in previously collected tariffs. Trump criticized the ruling as "anti-American and outrageous" and responded by invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act to impose a new 10% global tariff.

Related

• Gyeongbuk's 10-ton fishing fleet shrinks as squid stocks fall
• S. Korea panel advances bill to require cancellation of repurchased shares
• South Koreans top Japan visitors as China plunges

Legal scholars say the ruling represents a reaffirmation of the separation of powers, underscoring that even strong executive action is subject to constitutional limits.

Under Article III of the Constitution, federal judges "hold their offices during good behavior," effectively granting lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire or are impeached for serious crimes. In more than two centuries, no Supreme Court justice has been removed through impeachment.

The system is designed to insulate judges from political pressure. Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers that while the judiciary is the "least dangerous branch," it cannot maintain independence without life tenure. Federal judges are also protected from salary reductions, further limiting political leverage.

The resilience of judicial independence was tested in 1937 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed expanding the Supreme Court to 15 justices after it struck down key New Deal measures. The so-called "court-packing plan" ultimately failed amid bipartisan opposition and public backlash, reinforcing the norm of a nine-member bench.

Earlier cases also illustrate the court's willingness to enforce constitutional limits during crises. In 1935, the court unanimously invalidated the Frazier-Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act in Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, ruling that it violated due process and just compensation protections for property rights.

The decision affirmed that economic emergencies do not override constitutional guarantees, setting an enduring precedent for property rights protection.

In South Korea, by contrast, Supreme Court justices serve single six-year terms and are appointed through a process in which the executive branch plays a significant role. Legal analysts note that recurring political controversy surrounding judicial appointments has fueled debate over how best to safeguard judicial neutrality and the rule of law.

The U.S. ruling has therefore prompted broader reflection beyond trade policy. Observers say it highlights the importance of institutional design, long-term tenure protections and a political culture that respects judicial boundaries.

As debates over judicial reform continue in South Korea's National Assembly, the American example is likely to feature prominently in discussions about how to strengthen safeguards for judicial independence while maintaining accountability.

-- Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260222010006387