Supreme Court to Deliberate on Presidential Emergency Powers and Tariff Authority
On November 5, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a pivotal case that will examine the boundaries of presidential emergency powers. The central question is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) allows a president to unilaterally impose extensive tariffs on imports from various nations.
The implications of this case extend beyond trade policy. The Supreme Court’s decision could influence the role of emergency powers in governance, potentially impacting the constitutional balance of power between Congress and the presidency.
This legal challenge emerged following President Trump’s declarations of three national emergencies to levy tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China. Subsequently, a fourth emergency was declared to impose a 10% global tariff and reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on certain countries and corporations. These actions were justified as addressing “unusual and extraordinary threats” to U.S. national security, foreign policy, and the economy.
A number of corporations and states filed lawsuits in response, challenging the administration’s authority to impose such tariffs under IEEPA. The Brennan Center supported these legal challenges, arguing that enduring trade imbalances do not qualify as an emergency and that IEEPA does not permit the imposition of tariffs. The Supreme Court is now tasked with deciding whether the statute gives the president unchecked authority to institute tariffs without congressional approval.
Understanding the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
IEEPA is among 137 statutory powers that can be invoked by the president during a declared national emergency. It was enacted in the 1970s alongside the National Emergencies Act to prevent executive overreach and ensure emergency powers address genuine threats rather than bypass Congress for routine issues.
Under IEEPA, the president may declare a national emergency to take measures such as investigating or regulating financial transactions in response to threats that originate outside the United States and impact national security, foreign policy, or the economy. Historically, this authority has been used to impose sanctions against hostile foreign entities, not to establish tariffs on imports from allied nations.
The administration argues that the term “regulate” within IEEPA is broad enough to include tariffs, overriding existing trade laws. However, courts have largely disagreed, with the Court of International Trade suggesting that such an interpretation would constitute an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s tariff powers. The Brennan Center’s amicus brief further contends that interpreting IEEPA to allow tariffs contradicts its original intent to limit presidential emergency powers.
Implications for Separation of Powers
The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to impose duties and regulate foreign commerce. Various laws have delegated some of this authority to the executive, allowing for tariffs under specific conditions. President Trump’s approach bypasses these legal frameworks by invoking IEEPA, a statute unrelated to tariffs.
The administration’s stance is that court review of the existence of an emergency or whether a situation qualifies as an “unusual and extraordinary threat” is unnecessary. This position raises concerns, as longstanding trade relationships hardly constitute an emergency, a term typically reserved for sudden and unexpected events.
Should the Court validate Trump’s use of IEEPA for tariffs, it would set a significant precedent for managing governance through emergencies. This could enable future presidents to unilaterally address issues like climate policy or technology regulation by declaring emergencies, circumventing congressional oversight and existing legal prohibitions.
Potential Outcomes from the Supreme Court
If the Court rejects the administration’s claim of unchecked presidential authority, it could strike down the tariffs by ruling that no national emergency exists, that trade imbalances do not constitute a threat, or that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. Alternatively, the Court might decide that the statute permits only targeted, proportionate responses to specific foreign threats, not global tariffs.
Conversely, a ruling in favor of the administration could affirm broad presidential powers to declare emergencies and impose tariffs based on economic threats, potentially undermining congressional authority in trade policy.
If the president wishes to implement global tariffs, he should seek congressional approval, allowing for legislative debate and accountability to the electorate, as envisioned by the Constitution.
