The Supreme Court is contemplating a significant decision that may redefine the limits of presidential power regarding Donald Trump’s global tariffs. During recent oral arguments, justices voiced concerns about the separation of powers and the president’s authority in relation to Congress. The crux of the issue revolves around whether Trump overstepped his bounds by enacting tariffs without legislative approval, which he claims are essential for national security and foreign policy.
Justice Clarence Thomas opened the discussion by questioning Solicitor General John Sauer about the applicability of the major questions doctrine to this case. This legal principle requires courts to ensure that the executive branch does not exploit vague laws for actions of major significance. Sauer contended that tariffs, tied to foreign trade, represented a poor fit for this doctrine as he urged the court to grant broader authority to the president concerning foreign affairs.
Brent Skorup, a legal expert at the CATO Institute, identified two patterns emerging from the Court’s trend. Historically, there has been a deference to presidential authority on international matters. Yet recently the Court has applied the major questions doctrine more rigorously, demanding explicit statutory backing for significant policies, as seen in past rulings like West Virginia v. EPA and Biden v. Nebraska. This raises the question: does the president’s claim to broad tariff authority under the statute, which does not specifically mention “tariffs,” fall under this rule? Skorup believes that the current disposition of the justices leans toward favoring importers, suggesting that the latest legal doctrines may prevail.
Trump’s rhetoric in the lead-up to the Court’s ruling underscores his sense of urgency regarding the stakes of the case. He warned that if the tariffs were declared unlawful, the potential for refunds could exceed $3 trillion, framing the situation as a national security crisis. “It would truly become an insurmountable National Security Event,” Trump expressed on social media, highlighting the potential chaos that could ensue if tariffs were annulled.
The president invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to justify his tariffs, citing the opioid crisis and trade deficits as national emergencies. He claimed that the tariffs generated revenue that would benefit low-income families while addressing some national debt. However, justices were skeptical about Trump’s rationale for bypassing Congress, especially when considering that IEEPA does not explicitly authorize tariffs.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Sotomayor pressed Sauer about the absence of clear language in IEEPA permitting the president to unilaterally impose tariffs, even though the law allows for the regulation of imports. The issue of whether Congress’s core authority over tariffs could be effectively handed over to the president without any limitations complicates the case further. Justice Neil Gorsuch raised important questions surrounding Congress’s authority and whether it could delegate such power to the executive branch.
Legal scholar Ilan Wurman suggested two potential paths the Supreme Court could take. The justices could interpret IEEPA narrowly, avoiding an explicit finding that Congress improperly ceded its tariff authority to the president. Conversely, the Court may choose to use this moment to apply the non-delegation doctrine, reviving it for the first time in years. As Wurman implied, the Court should occasionally assert this doctrine, which serves to check the balance of power among branches of government.
Ultimately, all eyes are on the justices as they prepare to deliver a ruling, expected by late June. This case not only has significant implications for Trump’s legacy but also raises fundamental questions about the balance of power and the respective roles of Congress and the presidency in shaping trade policies. The outcome may shape future interpretations of presidential authority for years to come.
"*" indicates required fields
