Supreme Court to Weigh Wednesday Trump Tariffs Authority/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Supreme Court will hear on Wednesday a pivotal case on whether President Trump’s use of tariffs under emergency powers oversteps legal boundaries. The decision could test whether the court applies the same standards to Trump as it did to Biden. At issue is the scope of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Trump Tariffs Case + Supreme Court Quick Looks
- Supreme Court to hear arguments on Trump’s emergency tariff powers
- Trump used IEEPA to impose broad tariffs on imports
- Law does not mention tariffs directly, raising legal questions
- Lower courts ruled Trump overstepped presidential authority
- Major questions doctrine from Biden-era rulings now central to case
- Businesses cite opinions from Justices Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh
- Administration claims emergency powers grant sufficient authority
- Foreign policy precedent and judicial deference at play
- Outcome could reshape use of tariffs in national emergencies
Deep Look
Supreme Court Faces Test: Will Trump Be Held to Biden-Era Legal Standards on Tariffs?
WASHINGTON — As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear a significant case involving President Donald Trump’s sweeping use of tariffs, a core constitutional question comes into focus: will the court apply the same legal limits it placed on President Joe Biden to Trump?
On Wednesday, the court will examine whether Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when he imposed two major sets of tariffs. The case pits executive power against judicial restraint, with businesses and states challenging the legitimacy of Trump’s actions.
Trump declared that prolonged trade deficits and rising deaths from fentanyl constituted national emergencies, giving him cause to act under IEEPA. Though the law does not explicitly reference tariffs, it permits the president to regulate the import of property in which a foreign nation holds an interest during emergencies.
This interpretation, Trump’s administration argues, provides a legal foundation for the tariffs. But the challengers and lower courts have pointed to a broader legal trend — one that has played a decisive role during Biden’s presidency — known as the major questions doctrine.
The Major Questions Doctrine: A Double-Edged Sword
In several rulings during Biden’s term, the conservative-leaning court demanded that Congress speak with clear authority when granting powers on significant policy matters. This doctrine led to the court striking down Biden’s eviction moratorium, vaccine mandates for large businesses, and his student loan forgiveness plan.
Now, the same principle is being used against Trump. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, based in Washington, found Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose tariffs unjustified without clearer congressional authorization.
The court observed that the economic impact of the tariffs could far exceed the programs previously invalidated under the major questions doctrine. Challengers are building on this, directly citing conservative justices’ past opinions to support their arguments.
Lawyers for Learning Resources Inc., a toy company involved in the lawsuit, quoted Justice Neil Gorsuch’s earlier writings, warning that without strict oversight, legislation risks becoming “the will of the current President.” Other plaintiffs pointed to Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s stance that Trump’s use of IEEPA grants “highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s prior dissents also feature in the challengers’ legal strategy. He previously cautioned against excessive judicial deference to executive claims of emergency powers, referencing historical examples of overreach.
Administration Pushes Back on Legal Limits
The Trump administration maintains that the major questions doctrine does not apply here. Instead, it leans on the notion that foreign policy and national security matters fall within broad presidential discretion, especially during emergencies.
Judge Richard Taranto of the Federal Circuit issued a lengthy dissent siding with this view, arguing that Congress intended IEEPA to grant wide latitude in crisis scenarios. Taranto noted that restricting the law’s scope would undermine the president’s ability to act swiftly in national interest.
Justice Kavanaugh echoed this sentiment in a June opinion, writing that Congress typically aims to provide presidents with “substantial authority and flexibility” in foreign affairs. He emphasized that the major questions doctrine has never been applied in a national security or foreign policy context.
Taranto also cited historical precedent from a 1981 Supreme Court ruling, which upheld President Jimmy Carter’s use of IEEPA during the Iranian hostage crisis. That decision was authored by then-Justice William Rehnquist, with current Chief Justice John Roberts serving as a law clerk at the time.
A Decision With Broad Implications
The Supreme Court’s ruling will likely set a new benchmark for interpreting presidential powers in economic emergencies. A decision against Trump could curtail executive authority to impose tariffs swiftly, requiring presidents to undergo lengthier processes tied to congressional approval.
Conversely, a ruling in Trump’s favor may embolden future presidents to wield IEEPA as a blunt tool for policy beyond trade, extending into immigration, diplomacy, and beyond.
The outcome may also signal how consistently the court applies its own doctrines across administrations, raising questions of judicial impartiality in cases that involve core presidential powers.
White House: Trump Acted Within Legal Bounds
White House officials maintain that Trump’s use of tariffs under IEEPA is lawful and essential to national security.
“President Trump has acted lawfully… to safeguard our national security and economy,” said spokesman Kush Desai. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt added that contingency plans are being prepared if the court rules against the administration.
“The importance of this case cannot be overstated. The president must have the emergency authority to utilize tariffs,” Leavitt emphasized during a weekend appearance on Fox News.
Trump’s Unprecedented Use of Tariffs
While presidents historically use financial sanctions or targeted trade restrictions in foreign policy, Trump has weaponized tariffs in a way not seen in modern times.
Instead of a methodical process, Trump often announces tariffs through executive orders or on social media, leveraging them in real time to address political and diplomatic disputes. Recently, he threatened Canada with trade penalties over a provincial TV ad, and used tariffs to pressure Brazil’s courts for prosecuting an ally.
“He’s treated tariffs like a sledgehammer, not a scalpel,” said Josh Lipsky of the Atlantic Council and a former Obama adviser. “They’re at the center of everything — trade, security, immigration, diplomacy.”
EU Deal Underscores Tariff Power
In one notable instance earlier this year, Trump threatened to raise tariffs on European imports from 1.2% to 30%, prompting the European Union to negotiate a compromise. The EU agreed to settle at 15% in exchange for Trump’s support for NATO and security guarantees for Ukraine.
EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič defended the deal, saying it was “not only about trade. It’s about security. It’s about Ukraine.”
Potential Fallout of Supreme Court Ruling
If the Supreme Court finds Trump exceeded his authority under IEEPA, it could reshape U.S. global strategy and weaken Trump’s negotiating position with allies and adversaries alike. It may also cast doubt on the validity of existing trade agreements, if those deals were struck under tariff threats now deemed unlawful.
Emily Kilcrease, a former U.S. trade official now with the Center for a New American Security, noted the lack of precedent: “No president has ever used tariffs this broadly or this aggressively to force foreign policy shifts.”
Still, Kilcrease believes there’s a “decent chance” the court upholds Trump’s authority, given the broad powers granted under IEEPA and the court’s past reluctance to challenge executive power.
If Trump loses, other trade laws could still be used — but those routes are slower and more bureaucratic, potentially weakening the immediacy and threat of tariffs.
“It doesn’t take tariffs off the table,” Kilcrease said. “But it certainly makes them harder to use at the snap of a finger.”
Global Impacts — and Higher Prices at Home
Beyond diplomacy, Trump’s tariff policy has rattled global markets and led to price hikes for U.S. consumers. Businesses that import goods from targeted countries often pass on those costs, raising concerns of inflation and supply chain instability.
In response, several countries have strengthened ties with China, which has capitalized on the situation by promoting itself as a champion of free trade in contrast to Washington’s growing protectionism.
Looking Ahead
As the Supreme Court prepares to rule, the outcome will either fortify or fracture Trump’s foreign policy model, which has relied heavily on quick, aggressive use of economic pressure. The case could also set a lasting precedent for future presidents and the balance of trade power between the executive and legislative branches.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.