Supreme Court Hears Arguments on trump-Era Tariffs, Potentially Challenging Trillion-Dollar Executive Power
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is weighing the legality of tariffs imposed during the Trump administration, a case that could considerably limit future presidential authority over trade and economic policy. The challenge centers on roughly $3 trillion in tariffs enacted under the International Emergency economic Powers Act (IEEPA), raising questions about the scope of executive power and congressional oversight.
The case arrives as Trump, who appointed three of the current justices during his first term, seeks to potentially reimpose tariffs if re-elected. So far, the court has shown reluctance to curb his exercise of executive authority, granting him wins on emergency appeals.However, these have been temporary measures, and the current case represents the first full argument before the court regarding a ample component of Trump’s broader conservative agenda.
Challengers argue the tariffs should be subject to the “major questions doctrine,” a legal principle established in a recent case involving President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. The court previously found that the law used to justify the loan forgiveness did not explicitly grant the president the power to enact a program with such significant economic consequences. They contend the Trump tariffs, projected to raise $3 trillion over the next decade, warrant similar scrutiny.
The government counters that tariffs fall under the president’s purview in foreign affairs, an area traditionally given deference by the courts. They also argue the major questions doctrine applies to governmental agencies,not the president directly.
Further complicating the case, challengers are invoking the nondelegation doctrine, questioning whether the Constitution allows the executive branch to exercise powers reserved for Congress. They argue Trump’s interpretation of the law could broadly empower the president to impose taxes under the guise of “regulation.”
As of September, the tariffs had generated $195 billion in revenue. A ruling against the Trump administration could necessitate refunds, creating logistical and financial complications.
While the 1977 IEEPA has been interpreted by four appeals court judges as granting the president broad authority to regulate imports during emergencies, critics point to a ancient trend of Congress ceding tariff authority to the president, a power vacuum Trump exploited. Should the court rule against the administration, any future tariff implementation woudl likely be subject to stricter limitations.
