The Supreme Court is set to make a landmark decision regarding President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose worldwide tariffs, following rulings from three lower courts that declared his actions illegal. The upcoming hearing represents the first instance in which the Supreme Court will definitively rule on a policy initiated by Trump, amid increasing scrutiny over presidential authority and its limits.
This case carries significant political and financial implications, as tariffs have been a central component of Trump’s economic and foreign policy strategies. Trump has warned that a Supreme Court ruling against him would be a ‘disaster’ for his administration.
Tariffs, fundamentally taxes on imports, are imposed on foreign goods brought into the United States and are typically borne by the companies that import these products. These additional costs can ultimately be passed down to consumers, affecting prices across various sectors. To date, the government has reported an impressive $195 billion in revenue generated from these tariffs.
According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress is granted the authority to impose tariffs, but President Trump has leveraged his claim of extraordinary power under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. By declaring national emergencies, Trump has sought to act without congressional approval, invoking this law most recently in February as justification to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China due to what he described as an emergency related to illegal immigration and drug trafficking. In April, he escalated action by implementing worldwide tariffs, citing the longstanding U.S. trade deficits as another national emergency.
Trump’s actions have faced legal challenges from libertarian-backed businesses and several states, which argue against the imposition of these tariffs. Federal courts have so far backed the challengers, with a specialized trade court, a district judge in Washington, and a business-focused appeals court affirming that Trump could not justify the tariffs under the emergency powers law, which does not explicitly authorize such actions. Despite these rulings, the courts allowed the tariffs to remain in place while appeals were ongoing.
One of the key legal foundations for the challengers’ arguments is the ‘major questions doctrine’, a legal principle that encourages Congress to provide clear guidance on significant economic and political issues. This doctrine has previously played a crucial role in the Supreme Court’s decisions to strike down various initiatives under Biden, including measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The tariff case’s stakes are notably higher, as these taxes have the potential to generate a staggering $3 trillion over the next decade. The businesses and states pursuing the challenge have drawn upon the writings of the three Trump-appointed justices—Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—in their arguments, hoping that these justices will impose similar limitations on tariffs as they did on other policies.
Justice Barrett previously illustrated the need for clarity in significant decisions by using an analogy of a babysitter taking children on an extravagant trip based merely on a parent’s encouragement. She advocates for clear communication from Congress regarding actions of substantial magnitude, stating that mere encouragement is insufficient for such extensive decisions. In contrast, Justice Kavanaugh has indicated that he might not apply the same restriction to matters involving foreign policy or national security.
Additionally, some businesses arguing against the tariffs have raised a separate legal contention that Congress cannot constitutionally delegate its taxing authority to the president. This principle, known as nondelegation, has not been invoked by the Supreme Court in nearly 90 years, following its ruling against certain New Deal pieces of legislation. Nevertheless, Justice Gorsuch has expressed concern regarding the potential dangers of allowing the executive branch too much latitude to legislate.
The Supreme Court has quickly moved to consider this high-profile case, agreeing to hear it in September and scheduling arguments within two months—a relatively rapid pace for the court. This expedited timeline indicates that the justices may be under pressure to reach a decision promptly.
Traditionally, the court takes several months or more to render a judgment in significant cases as the majority and dissenting opinions undergo multiple rounds of revision before publication. However, urgency has occasionally led the court to act more swiftly, as demonstrated in a recent unanimous ruling involving TikTok that followed a quick turnaround after hearings.
As the Supreme Court prepares to address this pivotal case concerning tariffs, the implications of their decision could reshape the boundaries of presidential power and influence the legal landscape surrounding economic policy for years to come.
image source from：pbs
