Executive Summary
The Story So Far
Why This Matters
Who Thinks What?
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on November 5 regarding the legality of President Trump’s sweeping tariffs, a move that could significantly shape the extent of presidential executive power in trade policy. The administration is seeking final say on its broad tariff agenda, which has faced repeated challenges in lower courts that ruled against the president’s authority to impose such duties.
Supreme Court to Address Tariff Authority
The Supreme Court fast-tracked two tariff-related cases earlier this month, signaling a potential decision before the year’s end. This decision is anticipated to be a landmark ruling on whether a president can unilaterally impose tariffs, particularly when invoking national security concerns.
Lower courts, including a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., and the Court of International Trade, have previously found that President Trump’s tariffs constituted executive overreach. However, these courts left the tariffs in place pending an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Administration’s Legal Stance
The Trump administration has justified its tariffs by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. This law allows the president to take certain actions during a national emergency. The administration argues that tariffs are necessary to address national emergencies, safeguard national security, and secure stronger trade deals, including stopping the flow of fentanyl into the country.
White House spokesman Kush Desai stated, “President Trump has acted lawfully by using the tariff powers granted to him by Congress in IEEPA to deal with national emergencies and to safeguard our national security and economy. We look forward to ultimate victory on this matter with the Supreme Court.”
Arguments Against Unilateral Tariff Power
Opponents of the tariffs argue that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the power to “collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations” under Article 1, Section 8. They contend that the IEEPA does not explicitly empower the president to raise tariffs to the extent seen under the current administration.
Legal and trade experts express concern that allowing such unilateral action could set a precedent for expanding executive power into other legislative domains. Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney representing plaintiffs in one of the cases before the Supreme Court, highlighted this, stating, “The concern is that if we allow it here that could creep into other laws that give the executive branch greater power.”
Critics also cite the landmark 1952 Supreme Court ruling in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, which established that presidents cannot overstep executive authority even during national emergencies. Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law expert, noted that “Even when it comes to foreign policy, the president’s authority may still only come from the constitution or federal statute. He has no inherent power in a national emergency.”
Historical Context of Presidential Tariffs
While President Trump is not the first to use executive authority for tariffs, critics differentiate his approach from past instances. In 2003, President George W. Bush imposed temporary tariffs on imported steel for approximately nine months. Similarly, President Richard Nixon implemented a 10 percent surcharge on all imports in 1971 to combat a currency crisis, lifting it after four months.
Clark Packard, a trade expert at the Cato Institute, points out that while Congress has delegated tariff authority to the executive branch at times, “it’s not a carte blanche.” Past tariffs were generally temporary and targeted, unlike the broad duties on a wide range of goods from numerous countries seen under President Trump.
Potential Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision carries significant weight for the future of presidential authority and trade policy. While some experts believe the court, which has shown deference to President Trump in certain executive power cases, might rule in his favor on tariffs, the outcome remains uncertain.
A victory for the administration “would be an enormous validation of his approach” to executive power, according to Packard. However, he also warned that “if the court greenlights these tariffs, that really truly opens up a Pandora’s box” regarding future presidential actions.
