trump Appeals to Supreme Court to Reinstate Tariffs, Citing Presidential Authority
Former President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to review lower court rulings that struck down tariffs he imposed, arguing they are vital for national security and economic stability. His legal team filed a three-page appeal Wednesday requesting the court grant review by next Wednesday and schedule arguments for early November.
The appeal asserts that the lower court decisions “gravely undermine the President’s ability to conduct real-world diplomacy and his ability to protect the national security and economy of the United States.” It highlights a warning from Treasury Secretary Scott bessent, who cautioned that delaying a ruling until June 26 could lead to notable economic disruption, potentially impacting $750 billion to $1 trillion already collected through the tariffs and making unwinding them problematic.
The legal challenge stems from three core arguments raised in lower courts against Trump’s tariffs. First, opponents argue the Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” classifying tariffs as import taxes. Second, they contend the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which Trump relies upon, does not specifically authorize the imposition of tariffs, taxes, or duties, and no prior president has used it for this purpose. critics point to the Supreme Court’s ancient reluctance to allow presidents to utilize older laws to justify substantial new regulations.
A federal appeals court ruled 7-4 last week that Trump had exceeded his legal authority, citing all three arguments. The court specifically concluded that Congress did not grant the president broad authority to impose tariffs through IEEPA. However, the court stayed its decision pending a Supreme Court ruling, meaning the tariffs remain in effect for the time being.
Trump’s lawyers are optimistic, believing the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court – known for its support of strong presidential power, especially in foreign policy and national security matters – may be receptive to their arguments.
The appeal is bolstered by a dissenting opinion from Judge Richard Taranto and three other judges on the appeals court. Taranto argued that presidents possess expanded authority when addressing foreign threats to national security, and that IEEPA represents a “congressional grant of broad emergency authority” allowing the president to “regulate” the ”importation” of goods, including through tariffs, which he asserted were a commonly understood tool of import regulation at the time the law was enacted.
The case echoes previous instances where the Supreme Court,under its conservative majority,has invoked the “major questions” doctrine to limit the scope of executive action. Three years ago, the court struck down a climate change regulation proposed by the obama and Biden administrations, and two years ago, it blocked Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, both on the grounds that they lacked clear congressional authorization. However,the effect of Trump’s tariffs is estimated to be significantly larger – at least five times greater - than the regulations challenged in those previous cases,according to the federal appeals court.
