Supreme Court to Decide: Did Trump Exceed Authority with Tariffs?

Supreme Court to review Trump tariffs. Issue: Did Trump have congressional authority to impose them?
The United States Supreme Court building stands majestically with the American flag flying high in front of it The United States Supreme Court building stands majestically with the American flag flying high in front of it
The U.S. Supreme Court building and its iconic classical architecture are shown with the American flag flying on a clear, sunny day. By MDL.

Executive Summary

  • The Supreme Court is set to review the legality of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump that lower courts found unlawful due to insufficient congressional authorization.
  • The central legal issue is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the president’s foreign affairs powers provide sufficient basis for tariffs without explicit congressional delegation, aligning with the Constitution’s separation of powers.
  • If the Supreme Court defers to the president, it would likely involve an expansive interpretation of IEEPA, combining foreign affairs power with national emergency declarations, potentially setting aside nondelegation and major questions doctrines.
  • The Story So Far

  • The Supreme Court is reviewing tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump that lower courts deemed unlawful, primarily because the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the explicit authority to regulate foreign commerce and impose tariffs, requiring clear congressional delegation for presidential action. Trump’s legal team contends that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), combined with the president’s inherent foreign affairs powers, provides a legitimate basis for these measures, challenging the long-standing separation of powers regarding trade policy.
  • Why This Matters

  • The Supreme Court’s decision on Donald Trump’s tariffs could fundamentally alter the balance of power in U.S. trade policy, potentially granting future presidents significantly expanded authority to impose tariffs without explicit congressional delegation by broadly interpreting the IEEPA and presidential foreign affairs powers. Such a ruling might set aside established doctrines related to nondelegation and major questions, thereby reshaping the constitutional framework for trade and foreign policy, while also considering the economic implications of maintaining or removing these tariffs.
  • Who Thinks What?

  • President Trump’s legal team contends that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), combined with the president’s inherent foreign affairs powers, provides a legitimate basis for the “Liberation Day” and “trafficking tariffs.”
  • Lower courts have deemed Trump’s tariffs unlawful, asserting they lack sufficient congressional authorization and that the president’s foreign affairs power does not independently grant authority to impose tariffs without clear and explicit congressional delegation.
  • The Supreme Court is set to review the legality of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump, which lower courts have deemed unlawful. Arguments are expected in November concerning the “Liberation Day” and “trafficking tariffs,” initially challenged for lacking sufficient congressional authorization. Trump’s legal team will contend that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), coupled with the president’s inherent foreign affairs powers, provides a legitimate basis for these measures.

    Constitutional Framework and Delegation of Power

    The U.S. Constitution delineates distinct powers for trade and foreign affairs. Article I grants Congress the authority to regulate foreign commerce and set tariffs, while Article II assigns the president power over foreign affairs. Crucially, the president can only impose tariffs if Congress explicitly delegates that authority, a central point of contention in the lower court rulings now under Supreme Court review.

    Historical Precedent in Trade Policy

    Historically, Congress and the presidency have maintained separate roles, with Congress enacting trade laws and the president implementing them. However, a long tradition of collaboration exists, as seen with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 (RTAA), which allowed President Franklin D. Roosevelt to negotiate and implement tariff agreements within statutory limits. This collaborative model evolved into mechanisms like Fast Track and later Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which facilitated presidential implementation of trade agreements with congressional approval, lasting nearly fifty years until its expiration in 2021 under President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

    Presidential Foreign Affairs Power and Tariffs

    While the president’s foreign affairs power is significant, it does not independently grant authority to impose tariffs without clear congressional delegation. The Supreme Court’s 1936 decision in United States v. Curtis Wright Export Corp. affirmed that Congress could delegate authority to the president in international matters, such as prohibiting arms sales, but stressed that such delegation must be clear, bounded, and unambiguous. Examples like the free trade agreements with Israel and Jordan, negotiated by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, were all based on explicit congressional grants of authority.

    Key Legal Precedent: United States v. Yoshida International

    A significant precedent the Supreme Court is expected to consider is the 1971 case of United States v. Yoshida International. In this instance, President Richard Nixon imposed a temporary import surcharge due to a balance of payments crisis. The measure was upheld on appeal under the World War I-era Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), which permitted presidential regulation of trade during a declared national emergency. However, Congress subsequently enacted legislation to restrict the TWEA’s use primarily to wartime, preventing its future application to domestic economic crises.

    Arguments for Supreme Court Deference

    The analysis suggests that if the Supreme Court defers to the president, it would likely involve an expansive interpretation of the IEEPA, combining the president’s foreign affairs power with declarations of national emergency. Such a decision might also consider the potential serious economic impact of suddenly losing tariff revenues. This amalgamation of reasons, the article posits, could lead to a broad reading of statutory delegation in IEEPA, potentially setting aside doctrines related to nondelegation and major questions.

    Ultimately, the core issue for the Supreme Court is whether the imposition of these tariffs constitutes an impermissible transfer of authority from the legislative to the executive branch. The article emphasizes that the president’s foreign affairs power does not inherently include the authority to impose tariffs beyond what Congress has clearly delegated, upholding the long-standing principle of separation of powers in U.S. governance.

    Add a comment

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Secret Link