Guilty of having “imposed taxes without our consent”, “prohibits its governors from passing laws of immediate importance”, “impeded laws relating to the naturalization of foreigners” but also 24 other grievances, listed in tiny letters on the booklet held up by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in front of a packed room this Thursday in Paris. The magistrate of the highest court in the United States is not talking about the latest exploits of Donald Trump, but of the crimes of George III, recorded 250 years ago by Thomas Jefferson in one of the founding texts of the country.
“Justice Alito”, as he should be addressed, was invited to the Le Marois hotel – headquarters of the France-Americas Committee located in the very opulent 8th arrondissement – by the association of jurists and lawyers Cercle Droit & Liberté on the occasion of the anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence. Appointed by George Bush in 2006, this septuagenarian is one of the most powerful men in his country. Alongside his eight counterparts, he has the heavy responsibility of deciding as a last resort for or against a decision taken within one of the fifty states or by the federal state. A power that gives them a reputation incomparable to that of our Street Sages from Montpensier. While the Supreme Court must soon rule on burning issues with potentially global consequences, this evening, restraint is required.
The balance of power under threat
Will judges declare the tariffs imposed by Donald Trump illegal without a vote from Congress? “No questions on current events, nor on the cases examined at the moment”warns the organizer and president of the Cercle Droit & Liberté, Thibault Mercier. These import taxes, introduced in the name of an emergency law (the IEEPA of 1977) by the American president, are today contested by several American companies and twelve federal states. If the Court ruled in their favour, companies and importers having paid these levies between February and mid-December 2025 could demand reimbursements. A colossal sum estimated at more than $133 billion in taxes by the US Customs and Border Protection agency.
“We are judges, not philosopher kings”
Beyond the economic repercussions, such a decision would drastically change Donald Trump’s mandate and rebalance the balance of power, both within the country and with the rest of the world. Gone are the threats of all-out tariff barriers. The president could no longer invoke the national emergency to take exceptional economic measures without the agreement of Congress, which would be strengthened. Conversely, if the judges sided with him, Donald Trump could continue to use customs duties as an instrument of economic and diplomatic pressure at will. More broadly, the executive power would no longer need to be burdened with parliamentary debate to take commercial measures.
“Leaders tend to want to extend their power, it’s human”explains Samuel Alito. “It has already happened that some people have exceeded their power,” he admits, taking care not to mention names. And to insist: “This is why the Court plays an essential role as a guarantor of balance. » We will not know much more this evening about the customs duties or about Donald Trump’s decree revising the land rights for the children of illegal immigrants, which the judges took up at the end of 2025.
Two readings of the Constitution
To render their judgment, they will look at the meaning of a sentence, taken from the 14th amendment of the founding text of American democracy: “Every person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States. » Should we apply it literally or interpret it in the light of our times, plagued by increasingly significant migratory flows? This question often comes up behind the columns of the courthouse located opposite the Capitol in Washington. It perfectly illustrates the difference between the “originalists”, as Samuel Alito defines himself, and the supporters of the “living Constitution”.
“We are judges, not philosopher kings”says the star of the day under the approving gaze of the public. In other words, magistrates must stick to the text at the time of its adoption. A speech that appeals in Europe, where there is more and more criticism against the evolution of the law. In recent months, several states have accused the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) of undermining their sovereignty, particularly in migration matters. They plead in particular for returning to a strict reading of the Convention in order to be able to expel illegal immigrants more easily.
In the United States, the “originalist” approach, the majority on the Court (six judges out of nine) and often hastily associated with conservatives, does not always serve the interests of the Republicans. On land law, judges have maintained this principle for decades, despite repeated attacks from Donald Trump. Last May, they refused to lift injunctions from federal judges blocking the application of the land law reform desired by the president. “We do not make our decisions based on our political affinities”insists Samuel Alito. Time for the petits fours. The judge first came to “the oldest ally” of the United States for “celebrate a little early” the 250 years of independence of his country and his 20 years of tenure on the Supreme Court.
