The Trump administration has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a federal appeals court decision that declared most of its imposed tariffs unconstitutional. The core of the dispute centers on whether President Trump exceeded his executive authority by implementing broad tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
On August 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a 7-4 decision, upheld a prior ruling stating that the IEEPA does not grant the president the power to enact such extensive tariffs without explicit congressional authorization. The court emphasized the constitutional principle that the power to levy taxes, including tariffs, rests solely with the legislative branch. The administration, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argues that these tariffs are crucial for national security and economic stability, citing their role in trade negotiations, revenue generation, and strengthening domestic manufacturing and military readiness.
Sauer's arguments contend that the term "regulate" within the IEEPA, when applied to "importation," implicitly includes the authority to impose duties, as tariffs have historically served as a regulatory mechanism for imports. He also asserted that the "major questions" doctrine does not preclude the president's use of IEEPA for tariffs, stating the statute "unambiguously authorizes tariffs." Conversely, the Federal Circuit's majority opinion found that the IEEPA's language does not explicitly authorize tariffs of the "magnitude" implemented by the administration. The court noted that other statutes delegating tariff authority to the president typically include explicit limitations and procedural safeguards, and that no prior president had used the IEEPA to impose tariffs.
The tariffs are set to remain in effect until at least October 14, pending the Supreme Court's decision on whether to hear the case. The administration has requested an expedited review, aiming for a resolution by early November. This legal challenge carries significant implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches concerning trade policy and the broader landscape of U.S. economic strategy. A ruling against the administration could potentially necessitate the refund of billions of dollars in collected tariff revenue.
The tariffs under scrutiny include those levied against Canada, Mexico, and China in response to concerns over fentanyl trafficking, as well as broader "reciprocal" tariffs applied to goods from a majority of trading partners. These measures are a key component of the Trump administration's economic agenda, with the administration warning that their invalidation could expose the nation to retaliatory trade actions and economic disruption. The case fundamentally questions the scope of presidential authority in international trade.