Tariff Ruling Blocks Presidential Threat to the Constitution: Lee Jae-myung's "Non-Prosecution" Rule
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to nullify tariffs, a response to the president's unchecked expansion of power—the most dangerous in a republican system—seems to be aimed at blocking corruption and a "constitutional threat" by extending vague and non-existent terms to the Constitution.
In the American presidential system, presidents of both parties have exploited the broad and ambiguous language of federal law to expand their authority, using it as a pretext for legislation instead of Congress. This ruling puts the brakes on the principle that "administrative officials must first have clear legal authority to assert special powers."
Lee Jae-myung's administration, led by Democratic Party lawmakers who control legislative power, stipulated that "prosecution includes suspension of trial." The Supreme Court, which holds the judicial power, deferred this to the "judgment of the presiding judge," and the court suspended it with an "indefinite postponement." The ruling sentencing Yoon Seok-yeol to life imprisonment separated the "indictment of the president" from "indictment" and "maintenance of indictment," ruling that "only the indictment applies."
The Korean Constitution grants the President the right to self-defense and immunity from prosecution. However, Democratic Party lawmakers have altered this into a "right to attack and overturn the three powers," and the judiciary has shown a tendency to yield, undermining the rule of law by "recognizing privilege."
This appears to be a normalization of the separation of powers and the rule of law, with the President demanding the application of Article 84 as a right to self-defense through the ongoing appeal trial in accordance with the Constitution, and the court requesting the Constitutional Court's judgment and making the final ruling.
The Constitution's "right to self-defense" expresses the executive branch's "right to self-defense" against the superior judiciary. It is not a "privilege of immunity," but rather a mechanism to guarantee the separation of powers.
The Korean Democratic Party's National Assembly, which altered the Constitution's presidential right to self-defense into a right to attack, appears to be a form of fascism that reinforces the administrative dictatorship.
The U.S. Supreme Court has defended executive orders as "presidential immunity based on the separation of powers." In a tariff ruling, it ruled that "taxes are a congressional authority, and tariffs are taxes."
The Lee Jae-myung administration, in a dispute over the apex of the executive branch stemming from the separation of powers, has seen the legislative branch infringe upon the independent judgment of the judiciary and collude with the executive branch. The legislative branch has evaded independent judgment and voluntarily abandoned its right to the separation of powers.
The Korean Constitution, in Chapter 2, People, Chapter 3, National Assembly, Chapter 4, Government, and Section 1, President, states that “Article 82: The President shall not be charged with a criminal offense during his tenure of office except for insurrection or treason,” and places the people at the highest level, dividing the government into three branches of government with the President below them.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the statute the U.S. Supreme Court applied in its ruling, contained only broad and vague legal language regarding the president's declaration of a national emergency. The Trump administration used this lack of authority to "regulate" imports as a justification for imposing tariffs, and the Supreme Court ruled the act invalid.
In her concurring opinion, Justice Kagan stated, "The core language of IEEPA—the language the government relies on—speaks nothing about imposing tariffs or taxes," and "general principles of statutory interpretation yield the same result."
Regarding the invalidation ruling, constitutional litigation attorney David French (Threads (@davidfrenchjag)) told the New York Times on the 22nd that while words like "regulate" and "import" were not precise enough to grant the president special powers, the court prevented reliance on broad and vague legal language, thereby preventing a threat to the Constitution.
He continued, “The Supreme Court blocked a presidential power grab so large and bold that it threatened the very foundations of our constitutional system.” “The Chief Justice’s opinion was based on the legal principle known as the ‘leading question doctrine,’ the same principle repeatedly used to block the Biden administration’s regulations and orders.”
This principle, explained by Justice Gorsuch in his concurring opinion to nullify the ruling, states that when executive branch officials claim Congress has granted them special powers, they must identify the clear legal authority for that power.
By wielding vast taxing power, the Trump administration has become a hub of massive lobbying and mutual benefit, and the Supreme Court’s clear approach to protecting the republic serves as a mechanism to limit opportunities for corruption.
Regarding corruption caused by the president’s abuse of taxing power, Politico reported on January 17 that “the top 20 lobbying firms generated nearly $824 million in revenue during the first year of Trump’s second term.”
Politico reported, “President Trump’s second term is already generating massive profits for Washington’s major lobbying firms, especially those with close ties to the administration.” “Trump’s sweeping policy changes across trade, taxes, health care, technology, defense, and energy have boosted revenues for nearly every major K Street lobbying firm, according to disclosures filed this week. Thirteen of the top 20 firms by revenue grew by more than 10% compared to 2024, bringing in a combined nearly $824 million, up from $595 million in the final year of the Biden administration.”
Lobbying firms benefiting from the president’s unchecked expansion of power include Ballard Partners, Brownstein Hyatt Faber Schreck, BGR Group, Akin Gump, Strauss Hauer & Feld, and Holland & Knight, all reporting record annual revenues. "The real driver is that we've seen the most activity in the first year of a new administration in a long time," Paul Stimus, a partner at Holland & Knight, told Politico.
His firm generated $54.6 million in lobbying revenue last year.
Federal lobbying spending has steadily increased over the past decade, and while taxes typically increase in the first year of an administration, Trump's strong executive power and influence are accelerating this trend.
"Every quarter seems to bring more challenges and opportunities from the administration and Congress," Nadim Elshami, policy director at Brownstein, told Politico.
Politico reported, “Some of the most dramatic windfalls were those with close ties to Trump and senior administration officials.” Ballard Partners, whose alumni include Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House Chief of Staff Suzy Wiles, signed more than 200 new clients after Trump’s election. Last year, Ballard led K Street (lobbying firms) with more than $88.3 million in lobbying fees, a 350% increase over 2024. In the fourth quarter alone, Ballard generated more revenue than in all of 2024.”
Brownstein, previously K Street’s top earner and second-ranked in 2025, saw its lobbying revenue rise to $73.9 million last year, up from $67.9 million in 2024. BGR Group, the third-largest lobbying firm last year, hired Wisconsin Republican Representative Sean Duffy last year before he became Secretary of Transportation in the Trump administration, and includes Trump campaign adviser David Urban as its executive director.
BGR Group reported $71.5 million in lobbying revenue last year, a 58% increase from 2024.
Among the new lobbying firms capitalizing on Trump's second term is Continental Strategies, founded in 2021 by former Trump diplomat and adviser Carlos Trujillo.
Politico reported, "Continental employs one of Wiles' daughters, a former aide to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and its lobbying revenue soared from $1.8 million in 2024 to more than $27 million in 2025." Checkmate Government, led by Ches McDowell, a friend of President Trump's son, reported receiving $70,000 from a single client in late 2024. However, by 2025, when Trump became president, it had signed 80 clients and earned over $21 million.
See <US Supreme Court's 'Congressional Authority on Tariffs', Separation of Powers, Lee Jae-myung's 'Immunity to Prosecute', February 21, 2026>