{"id":75872,"date":"2026-08-13T19:44:33","date_gmt":"2026-08-13T23:44:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/?p=75872"},"modified":"2026-08-13T19:44:33","modified_gmt":"2026-08-13T23:44:33","slug":"roberts-storytelling-technique-tariffs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/roberts-storytelling-technique-tariffs\/","title":{"rendered":"Roberts Reveals Storytelling Technique in Trump Tariffs Case"},"content":{"rendered":"

The most striking moment in Chief Justice John Roberts\u2019 majority opinion in Learning Resources v. Trump<\/em> is not a pronouncement on constitutional law or a parsing of statutory text. It is a quiet, almost invisible structural choice: the Chief Justice tells a story. In a November 2025 ruling that struck at the heart of the Trump administration\u2019s tariff agenda, Roberts deployed a storytelling technique that every writer\u2014not just every lawyer\u2014can learn from. He made the President of the United States the main character of his narrative, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph. This is not legal jargon. It is not legalese. It is the oldest trick in the book of good English composition, and it may be the single most underappreciated reason why the opinion is so effective.<\/p>\n

The Core of the Conflict: IEEPA, Tariffs, and a 422-Word Masterclass<\/h2>\n

The case turned on a deceptively simple question: Does the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorize the president to impose sweeping tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China? The solicitor general had warned that a negative answer would trigger another Great Depression. The public was being asked to digest a statute of roughly 2,000 words, supplemented by presidential orders that ran nearly 12,000 words. The legal arguments involved separation of powers, textualism, and the major questions doctrine\u2014abstractions that rarely engage anyone outside a law school seminar.<\/p>\n

Roberts solved this problem by ignoring the standard playbook of legal writing. In Section I.A of the opinion, he tells a 422-word story. The protagonist is the President. The antagonist is the statute itself. The plot is a clash between executive ambition and congressional limitation. Roberts could have written about the \u201cstatute,\u201d the \u201cproclamation,\u201d the \u201cexecutive order,\u201d or the \u201ctariff regime.\u201d Instead, he writes about what the President did.<\/p>\n

How the Chief Justice Uses Actors as Subjects<\/h3>\n

The technique is deceptively simple. When Roberts sets out IEEPA\u2019s requirements, he does not write, \u201cThe statute requires that a national emergency be declared.\u201d He writes, \u201cthe President must identify\u201d a threat. Then, \u201che must declare\u201d an emergency. Then \u201che\u201d may \u201cregulate . . . importation.\u201d The actor\u2014the President\u2014occupies the subject position of nearly every sentence.<\/p>\n

This pattern continues when Roberts turns to the facts. He does not write that \u201cthe January Proclamation addressed two threats.\u201d He writes that \u201cPresident Trump sought\u201d to address those threats. The first threat was \u201cthe influx of illegal drugs from Canada, Mexico, and China.\u201d The second was \u201clarge and persistent\u201d trade deficits. The President \u201cdetermined\u201d the threats were serious. \u201cHe invoked\u201d his power under IEEPA. \u201cPresident Trump declared\u201d the requisite emergency. \u201cHe then imposed\u201d tariffs. Later, \u201che increased\u201d or \u201che removed\u201d tariffs. Still later, \u201cthe President . . . shifted . . . goods into and out of\u201d the tariff regime.<\/p>\n

In the entire section, Roberts used an actor as the subject in all but five sentences. The effect is that the reader never loses sight of who is doing what. The President is tied to a chair at center stage, and the opinion follows his every move.<\/p>\n

Why This Approach Works: The Psychology of Characters and Actions<\/h2>\n

The power of this technique is not mysterious. Joseph Williams, in his classic text Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace<\/em>, identified the principle decades ago: readers look for action in the verbs, but they \u201cwant characters as subjects even more.\u201d When a writer fails to name characters in subjects\u2014or deletes them entirely\u2014the reader encounters a \u201ctripping hazard.\u201d The prose becomes abstract, hard to follow, and easy to ignore.<\/p>\n

This is precisely what happens when most lawyers write. They reach for abstractions: \u201cthe statute provides,\u201d \u201cthe executive order requires,\u201d \u201cthe question presented is.\u201d These constructions place the concept, not the person, at the center of the sentence. The reader must do extra work to infer who is acting. Roberts, by contrast, makes the reader\u2019s job effortless. He gives the reader a single, recognizable character\u2014the President\u2014and shows him acting in a sequence of events.<\/p>\n

What Is the Major Questions Doctrine and Why Does It Matter in This Case?<\/h3>\n

One of the doctrinal pillars of the case was the major questions doctrine, which holds that Congress must speak clearly when it delegates authority over issues of vast economic or political significance. Roberts used his storytelling framework to set up this argument. The story he told was one of the President unilaterally imposing tariffs on \u201cimports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time.\u201d The statute, by contrast, allowed the President only to \u201cregulate . . . importation.\u201d The gap between the narrow statutory language and the sweeping executive action was the entire basis for the ruling. By using the President as the subject, Roberts made it clear that the President was not just acting\u2014he was acting far beyond what Congress had authorized. The major questions doctrine was not an abstract legal test; it was the natural conclusion of the story.<\/p>\n

The Contrast: How the Congressional Research Service Writes<\/h2>\n

The difference between Roberts\u2019 approach and conventional legal writing becomes stark when compared to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on IEEPA, published in September 2025. The CRS report covers essentially the same ground as Roberts\u2019 422-word story. But it does so in five dense pages of abstract prose, replete with footnotes.<\/p>\n

Where Roberts writes about the President, CRS writes about \u201cIEEPA empowers.\u201d A 56-word sentence hangs on that abstraction. The next sentence hangs on \u201cstatute provides.\u201d The public is reminded that each \u201cnew threat . . . requires\u201d certain actions, but the actor\u2014the President\u2014is nowhere to be found. The coup de grace<\/em> is a block quotation of IEEPA\u2019s central provisions, which the reader must parse without any narrative framing.<\/p>\n

CRS does eventually discuss the president\u2019s orders, but the president himself is permitted to \u201cwander on and off stage.\u201d In his absence, the reader must content themselves with massive sentences about the \u201cJanuary Proclamation\u201d or the \u201cFebruary Executive Orders.\u201d The result is a bureaucratic tome\u2014scrupulously accurate, no doubt, but abstract enough and long enough to avoid being read at all.<\/p>\n

What Can Writers Learn from This Technique?<\/h2>\n

The lesson is not limited to Supreme Court<\/a> opinions. Any writer who needs to explain complex material\u2014whether it is a legal argument, a technical specification, or a corporate strategy\u2014can apply Roberts\u2019 method. The core principle is simple: prefer actors as subjects rather than concepts or abstractions.<\/p>\n

This means ruthlessly editing sentences to find the human being behind the action. If you write, \u201cThe decision to increase tariffs was made,\u201d the actor is hidden. If you write, \u201cThe President increased tariffs,\u201d the actor is front and center. If you write, \u201cThe statute\u2019s requirements include a declaration of a national emergency,\u201d the actor is absent. If you write, \u201cThe President must declare a national emergency,\u201d the actor is present.<\/p>\n

The rule of thumb is this: underline the first seven or eight words of each sentence. Do you see a subject there? Is it a character? If not, is there a \u201cgood reason\u201d to choose the abstraction? If there is no good reason, look for characters hidden in other parts of speech\u2014phrases like \u201cthe president\u2019s<\/em> orders\u201d or \u201cthe powers of the president<\/em>.\u201d Invite those characters back onstage as subjects who have things to do.<\/p>\n

The Practical Editing Process for Storytelling<\/h3>\n

Adapted from Joseph Williams, the process is straightforward:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • Underline the first seven or eight words of each sentence.<\/li>\n
  • Ask: do I see a subject there? Is it a character?<\/li>\n
  • If it is not a character, ask: is there some \u201cgood reason\u201d to choose the abstraction?<\/li>\n
  • If not, look for characters hidden in other parts of speech.<\/li>\n
  • If necessary, create a menu of the main characters in your conflict, then invite them back onstage as subjects who have things to do.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Most writers will discover that \u201cgood reason\u201d to abandon the actor-as-subject approach arises far less often than they think. The instinct to write abstractly is a bad habit, not a requirement of professionalism.<\/p>\n

    Why This Technique Is Especially Important in Legal and Policy Writing<\/h2>\n

    Legal and policy writing has a well-deserved reputation for being unreadable. The reasons are many: jargon, legalese, passive voice, and an obsession with precision that often comes at the expense of clarity. But the single most damaging habit is the deletion of actors from sentences. When a statute is said to \u201cprovide\u201d something, or when an order is said to \u201crequire\u201d something, the reader is left to wonder: who provided? Who required? The answer is always a person\u2014a legislator, a president, an agency official\u2014but the person is erased.<\/p>\n

    Roberts\u2019 opinion in Learning Resources v. Trump<\/em> is a direct rebuke to this tradition. The Chief Justice does not write about \u201cthe statute\u201d or \u201cthe proclamation.\u201d He writes about the President. The result is not just clearer\u2014it is more persuasive. By making the President the main character, Roberts frames the entire case as a story about what one person did, rather than an abstract debate about what a text means. And when the story is told that way, the conclusion feels inevitable.<\/p>\n

    The Enduring Lesson for Writers in Every Field<\/h2>\n

    The best writers in any field\u2014whether journalism, law, business, or technology\u2014understand that readers are wired for narrative. They want to know who did what, and why. They want characters, not concepts. They want action, not abstraction. Roberts understood this when he wrote the opinion. He could have written a dry, technical document that satisfied every legal convention. Instead, he wrote a story.<\/p>\n

    The result was an opinion that was not only legally rigorous but also accessible to anyone willing to read it. And in a case that could reshape the global economy, that accessibility mattered. The public needed to understand why tariffs on Canadian lumber and Chinese electronics were being struck down. Roberts gave them a story they could follow\u2014and a President they could hold accountable.<\/p>\n

    For writers everywhere, the lesson is clear. The next time you sit down to explain something complex, do not reach for the abstractions. Do not bury your actors in passive constructions or bureaucratic nouns. Instead, find the main character of your story, tie them to a chair at center stage, and let them act. Your readers will thank you.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The most striking moment in Chief Justice John Roberts\u2019 majority opinion in Learning Resources v. Trump is not a pronouncement on constitutional law or a parsing of statutory text. It is a quiet, almost invisible structural choice: the Chief Justice tells a story. In a November 2025 ruling that struck at the heart of the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":75875,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/raw.githubusercontent.com\/medeiroslima\/overcentral-images\/main\/images\/ocie_1786664697799.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"Roberts Reveals Storytelling Technique in Trump Tariffs Case","footnotes":""},"categories":[40657],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-75872","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-legal"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/raw.githubusercontent.com\/medeiroslima\/overcentral-images\/main\/images\/ocie_1786664697799.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"Roberts Reveals Storytelling Technique in Trump Tariffs Case","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75872","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=75872"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75872\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/75875"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75872"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75872"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75872"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}