Trump promotes tariffs. Now the Supreme Court will decide whether it is legal or not.
Seven months ago, President Donald Trump declared April 2 “Emancipation Day.” Standing in the White House Rose Garden, he announced a round of “reciprocal” tariffs imposed on nearly every country in the world.
He had already imposed tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico shortly after taking office in January. But are all these definitions legal? The Supreme Court will hear the matter on Wednesday.
The case concerns what the Trump administration considers its greatest economic policy achievement to date, and what a bipartisan group of critics describe as a new effort by Trump to expand presidential power beyond the limits of the Constitution.
Why did we write this?
After lower courts struck down the legal argument supporting the Trump administration’s more comprehensive tariffs, the Supreme Court is now taking up the matter. This issue is important not only for the economic policy pursued by the United States, but also with regard to the separation of powers under the Constitution.
Mr. Trump took his case to the justices after three lower federal courts struck down the tariffs. The courts ruled that the administration allowed the tariffs to be imposed by misreading the Emergency Economic Act. Decades of precedent support their interpretation of the law, and the administration disputes it.
If the Supreme Court rules in President Trump’s favor, “it would potentially provide an unprecedented amount of power to the president,” says Wendy Cutler, senior vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute and former deputy U.S. trade representative.
According to Mr. Trump, this power is essential to America’s economic competitiveness on the world stage.
He added that this issue is “one of the most important issues in the history of our country.” books On social media last month. “If we don’t win” He said At the White House in October, “We are going to be a weak and troubled financial mess for many years to come.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Besent said a ruling against the administration would raise difficult practical questions about what to do with the billions in tariff revenue already collected. Even critics of the tariffs agree with the Trump administration’s assessment – to some extent.
“I’m not sure about that [one of] “It’s the most important issue in American history, but it’s an issue for the ages,” Michael McConnell, a Stanford Law School professor who represents small businesses challenging the tariffs, said during a call with reporters last week.
He added: “This is a major confrontation between the executive branch and Congress.”
Origins of the Customs Tariff Authority
The Constitution delegates tariff power to Congress, with Article I stating that the legislature shall have the power to “levy and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.”
But Congress also passed several laws that give the president some power to set tariffs. The relevant law in this case is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This law—which does not mention the word “tariff”—stipulates that in the face of an “unusual and unusual threat,” the president can declare a national emergency and invoke IEEPA, which gives him new powers to “regulate…importation.”
The Trump administration claims that the trade deficit, as well as the smuggling of fentanyl from China through Mexico and Canada, are national emergencies that justify its tariff declarations. Mr. Trump is the first president to try to use IEEPA to impose tariffs.
The closest any president has come to unilaterally imposing tariffs has come In 1971When Richard Nixon cited IEEPA’s predecessor when he ordered a small, “temporary” 10% tariff on imports into the United States, he ended the tariffs four months later after successful trade negotiations with the affected countries.
The Trump administration says it is following a similar playbook, citing trade agreements with the European Union, Japan and Britain that were agreed upon after the tariffs were imposed. But unlike under President Nixon, many of these framework deals include Trump’s tariffs remaining in place.
Ms. Cutler says Mr. Nixon “applied these definitions for a short period of time.” “From the Trump administration’s perspective, once you declare a state of emergency, you can keep it in place for as long as you want.”
The Constitution and the role of Congress
The confrontation is summed up in the first democratic principles adopted by America. Taxation without representation sparked the Revolutionary War, and the Constitution sought to remedy it by giving Congress the exclusive power to levy taxes. By unilaterally imposing tariffs — effectively a tax on U.S. companies that import goods, according to a nonpartisan report. Tax Foundation) – Critics say Mr. Trump is ignoring these basic principles.
More specifically, the Trump administration has been skirting the Constitution by misinterpreting IEEPA, critics from legal groups across the ideological spectrum allege.
They claim that the IEEPA is actually a wartime law. When the country faces an “extraordinary and unusual threat,” the law gives the president a range of new powers to address the emergency, including the power to “regulate…importation.”
Critics say this is not the authority to set tariffs. Moreover, they claim that the state of emergency cited by the Trump administration is not an emergency at all. the Executive order Imposing “liberation day” definitions, for example, includes the phrase “large and persistent trade deficit.”
“The use of IEEPA is limited to extraordinary emergency situations. [and] A trade deficit is not unusual or even an emergency, said Jeffrey Schwab, director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, a legal group that represents a group of small businesses challenging the tariffs.
The center is one of a number of odd fellows fighting Mr. Trump’s tariffs. When the organization last appeared before the judges, it won an award Historical case Restricting the rights of union organizing throughout the country – Decision celebrate by Conservative America. On the tariff issue, the organization now finds itself allied with left-leaning organizations including the Brennan Center for Justice and Democracy Forward.
Also on their side is Pacific Law Firm, a public interest law firm that typically represents conservative cases. One of the group’s recent victories in the Supreme Court overturned a loan forgiveness program launched by the Biden administration.
In the tariff case, “the issues are essentially the same,” says Oliver Dunford, a senior lawyer at the company.
“Here, the president is effectively making a new policy,” he adds. “And if we want to eat [a policy issue]Congress must participate.
As for bipartisan opposition, Dunford hopes it’s “a good omen… In the future, there will be greater bipartisan opposition to presidents when they overstep their authority.”
How the White House defends tariffs
On the other hand, the Trump administration claims that the trade deficit has created “an ongoing economic emergency of historic proportions.” The administration argues that using tariffs to pressure China, Mexico and Canada to reduce fentanyl trafficking into the United States is also a valid use of IEEPA.
One of the administration’s prominent claims is that tariffs fall squarely within the authority of presidents on matters of foreign policy and national security.
The IEEPA “is a particularly broad mandate in the areas of foreign policy and national security,” the administration wrote in its report. Petition To court.
The administration added that if the Supreme Court overturned the tariffs, it would “reflect intolerable judicial interference in the president’s responsibility to manage foreign relations and trade.”
Trump administration officials have also raised what might be a compelling “remedies” argument — focusing on what the administration should do if it loses.
in advertisement Billions of dollars in customs duties have already been collected, Mr. Besant wrote, taking it to court. He added that if the tariffs were suddenly removed, “its removal could cause major disruption.”
Given the time-sensitive nature of the case, most court watchers believe the justices will issue their opinion months before the term ends in June.
Some experts also believe that the Trump administration’s loss does not mean the end of the tariff regime. Judges can uphold some definitions but not others, and if some definitions are struck down, the administration can use other laws to reimpose them. The administration also set tariffs under various laws, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum, which have not been legally challenged.
“if [the tariffs are] “If this is rescinded, it will be a blow to the president’s trade agenda, but there may be a plan B,” Ms. Cutler says. “We will still be in a world where tariffs are a key part of the administration’s trade agenda.”