trump Appeals to Supremeโข Court to โReinstate Tariffs, Citing Presidential Authority
Former President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to review lower court rulings thatโ struck down tariffs he imposed, arguing they are vital for national security and economic stability. Hisโ legal team โfiled a three-page appeal Wednesday requesting the โขcourt grantโ review by nextโ Wednesday and schedule arguments โfor early November.
The appeal โขasserts that the โlower court โฃdecisions “gravely undermineโค the President’sโข ability to conduct real-world diplomacy โขand his ability โto protect the national โsecurity and economy of the United States.” It highlights a warning โfrom Treasuryโค Secretary Scott bessent, who cautioned that delayingโฃ a โคruling until June 26 could leadโ to notable economic disruption, potentially impacting โ$750 billion to $1 trillion already collected through the tariffsโ and makingโ unwinding them problematic.
The legal โchallengeโ stems from three core arguments raised in lower courts against Trump’s tariffs. First,โ opponents โคargue the Constitution โgrants Congress, โฃnot the president,โ the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” classifying tariffs as import taxes. Second,โค theyโ contend the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powersโฃ Actโ (IEEPA), which Trump relies upon, โฃdoes not specifically โฃauthorize the imposition โofโ tariffs, taxes, or duties, and no prior president has used it for โขthis purpose. critics point to the Supreme Court’s ancient reluctance to allow presidents โto utilize older โlaws to justify substantial โnew regulations.
A federal appeals courtโข ruled โ7-4 lastโ week that Trump had exceeded his legal authority, citing all three arguments. The court specificallyโ concluded โthat Congress did notโ grant the president โbroad authority toโ imposeโฃ tariffs through IEEPA. โขHowever, theโข court stayed its decision pending a Supreme Court ruling, meaning โคtheโ tariffs remain in effect for the time being.
Trump’sโ lawyers are optimistic, believing โคthe current conservative โmajority on the Supreme Courtโค – knownโ for its support of โขstrongโ presidential power, especially โคin foreign policy and nationalโข security mattersโข – may โbe receptive to their arguments.
The appeal โขis bolstered by a โคdissentingโฃ opinion from Judge Richard Taranto and three other judges on theโฃ appeals court. โคTaranto argued that presidents possess expandedโ authority when addressingโค foreign โthreatsโฃ toโ nationalโข security, andโข that โIEEPA โrepresents a “congressional grant of broad emergencyโ authority”โค allowingโค the presidentโ to “regulate”โข the โฃ”importation” of goods, includingโฃ through tariffs, which โคhe asserted wereโ a commonly understood tool of import regulationโ at the time the law was enacted.
The โคcase echoes previousโฃ instances where theโข Supreme Court,under its conservative majority,has invoked โthe “major questions” doctrine to limit theโ scope of executive action. Three yearsโข ago, the court struck โdown a climate change โregulation proposed by โคthe obama and Biden โขadministrations, and two years ago, it โฃblocked Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, both onโ the grounds thatโข they โlacked clear congressional authorization. However,the effect of โTrump’sโค tariffs is estimated to be significantlyโ larger – at leastโฃ five times greater โข- than theโฃ regulations โchallengedโ in those โคprevious cases,according to the federal appeals court.
