Trump's Global Tariffs Face Key Test Under Supreme Court Doctrine
Editorial StaffTrump's Tariffs Face Crucial Legal Test Over Economic Impact
President Trump’s recent imposition of global tariffs is under intense scrutiny, potentially determining their longevity and impact on the administration's trade policies. Legal battles surrounding these tariffs may escalate to the Supreme Court, putting the administration's strategies to the ultimate judicial test.
The core question is whether Trump's global tariffs hold "vast economic and political significance." A favorable ruling could secure the continuation of the president’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, while a dismissal might weaken the administration’s position as legal challengers attempt to overturn them.
Central to this debate is the Supreme Court's application of the major questions doctrine, which restricts federal actions on issues of significant economic and political weight without clear Congressional authorization. This legal principle, reinforced by conservative-appointed judges during Trump’s tenure, has previously been upheld in cases challenging President Biden's policies.
Recently, the US Court of International Trade in New York invalidated numerous tariffs without explicitly invoking the major questions doctrine. However, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., decided to maintain Trump’s tariffs temporarily while ongoing legal deliberations continue.
On Monday, the small businesses that initially contested the tariffs presented arguments urging the court to remove the temporary stay. They emphasized that any broad interpretation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA)—the legislation Trump utilized to justify his tariffs—is unconstitutional if it grants unlimited tariff authority.
This legal challenge forces courts to determine whether a president can independently impose import duties during what he deems a national emergency. The administration contends that the major questions doctrine does not apply to national security issues, where presidential authority is paramount. Additionally, it argues that the doctrine targets federal agencies, not the president directly.
Trump cited the IEEPA in multiple executive actions, including the February 1 tariffs on imports from China, Mexico, and Canada, citing threats from illegal immigration and drug influxes. On April 2, known as “Liberation Day,” he announced additional tariffs on various countries, further leveraging the IEEPA as legal backing.
University of California Davis constitutional law professor Aaron Tang described the tariffs as a prime example of the major questions doctrine in action. He noted, "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 major questions doctrine was notably applied by the Supreme Court in 2022, limiting Biden’s EPA from regulating certain greenhouse gas emissions without explicit Congressional support. A year later, the court also constrained the Department of Education from forgiving substantial student loan debt under the HEROES Act, underscoring the doctrine's significant implications for presidential power.
Given the substantial economic ramifications of the tariffs, Tang believes that courts are likely to scrutinize their authorization closely. He stated, "The tariffs are way more economically significant than any of the Biden administration policies."
The ongoing legal challenges present a formidable obstacle for Trump’s tariff strategy, highlighting the enduring tension between executive actions and legislative authority.
Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed.
Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance
