Supreme Court May Decide Fate of Trump’s Controversial Global Tariffs

The Supreme Court may rule on Trump's tariffs under IEEPA, testing presidential power and the major questions doctrine with major economic effects.
Supreme Court May Decide Fate of Trump's Controversial Global Tariffs

Supreme Court Faces Critical Decision on Trump’s Global Tariffs

A legal showdown concerning the future of President Trump’s global tariffs is intensifying, with potential implications reaching as far as the Supreme Court. The judiciary’s evaluation could play a crucial role in deciding the sustainability of these tariffs, directly impacting the administration’s broader trade policies.

The principal debate hinges on the significance of the global tariffs’ “vast economic and political interests,” which could either affirm President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs or undermine them as legal challenges seek their reversal. This debate involves determining whether the tariffs align with the major questions doctrine, which has the potential to limit federal actions on issues of substantial economic consequence without explicit Congressional backing.

The major questions doctrine, reinforced during Trump’s administration by conservative-appointed judges, limits executive actions with significant repercussions unless clearly sanctioned by Congress. Although the doctrine was not explicitly cited, the US Court of International Trade in New York recently overturned many tariffs. However, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., opted to uphold them temporarily as legal arguments continue unfolding.

The contention from small businesses that initiated the legal battle focuses on contesting the constitutionality of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), questioning its utility in justifying Trump’s tariff decisions. The core argument is whether presidential authority can independently impose tariffs under the guise of national emergencies without breaching constitutional limits.

In defense, the administration argues that the major questions doctrine is irrelevant to national security matters, where presidential authority should not be questioned. They also assert that the doctrine is meant to restrict federal agencies, not the president himself.

The IEEPA has been central to Trump’s executive orders, including the imposition of tariffs on February 1 targeting imports from countries including China, Mexico, and Canada, under claims of threats from illegal immigration and drug problems. Further tariffs were announced on April 2, labeled “Liberation Day,” again relying on the IEEPA for validation.

Constitutional law professor Aaron Tang from the University of California Davis remarked on the unprecedented use of the IEEPA for tariffs, saying, “IEEPA has never [been] used before to impose tariffs. So if the doctrine means anything, and if it applies neutrally, no matter who the president is, it will apply here.”

The Supreme Court previously invoked the major questions doctrine to curtail President Biden’s EPA from imposing greenhouse gas regulations in 2022, and later limited the Department of Education’s ability to erase student debt under the HEROES Act, highlighting its role in defining presidential powers.

As these tariff policies possess immense economic implications, Tang asserts that the courts will likely examine their legitimacy rigorously. “The tariffs are way more economically significant than any of the Biden administration policies,” he observed.

The persistent legal contest against Trump’s tariff strategy underscores the ongoing struggle between executive decision-making and legislative oversight.

Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed.

Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow’s stock prices

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance

Share the Post:

Subscribe

Related Posts