President Donald Trump’s expansive use of executive power to reshape U.S. trade policy now faces a critical legal test at the Supreme Court. By unilaterally imposing broad tariffs, Trump wagered that neither Congress nor the judiciary would significantly challenge his authority over trade—a gamble that may soon be validated. n nCongress did not oppose his actions; Republican majorities in both the House and Senate supported his decision to overhaul tariff policy without legislative approval. Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments on November 5, setting the stage for a potentially decisive ruling by year’s end. The court fast-tracked two related cases, underscoring the urgency of the matter. n nLower courts have consistently ruled that the administration overstepped its authority by imposing sweeping tariffs under emergency provisions. However, legal and trade analysts suggest the current Supreme Court, which has shown considerable deference to Trump in executive matters, may ultimately side with the administration. n n”This court has been highly accommodating to President Trump in numerous areas,” said Alan Wm. Wolff, former deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization. On the issue of tariffs, “I believe the administration will eventually prevail.” n nA definitive win for Trump is not guaranteed. Although the court has a six-justice conservative majority, it has previously ruled against the president on matters involving executive overreach. n nMoreover, Wolff and others question the legal foundation for unilateral tariff imposition. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant the president power to set tariffs. Past rulings have limited presidential authority when national security claims are used to justify such measures. n n”The worry is that allowing this precedent could extend to other areas, giving the executive branch unchecked influence,” said Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney representing plaintiffs in one of the cases before the court. n nArticle 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to “collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” There is no mention of presidential power to independently establish tariff policy. n nThe Trump administration invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law, to impose a 10 percent tariff on all imports, along with higher duties on specific countries and goods. These measures have generated billions in revenue but also triggered retaliatory tariffs from China and other nations seeking better trade terms. n nMultiple small businesses and states have challenged the tariffs in court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the Court of International Trade both found that the actions constituted executive overreach. However, the tariffs remain in effect as the administration appeals to the Supreme Court. n nOpponents argue that IEEPA does not explicitly authorize the president to raise tariffs, and therefore the measures violate constitutional separation of powers. n nTrump has maintained that removing the tariffs would lead to an “economic disaster.” Administration officials continue to frame the policy as essential to national security, claiming it helps curb fentanyl trafficking and strengthens trade negotiations with China and other strategic competitors. n n”President Trump has acted lawfully by using tariff authorities delegated by Congress through IEEPA to address national emergencies and protect our economy and security. We anticipate a favorable outcome at the Supreme Court,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said. n nPresidents have occasionally exercised tariff authority with congressional backing. In 2003, George W. Bush imposed temporary steel tariffs lasting about nine months. In 1971, Richard Nixon introduced a 10 percent import surcharge to address a currency crisis, lifting it after four months. n nCritics argue that unlike those targeted, time-limited actions, Trump’s tariffs apply broadly across dozens of countries and numerous product categories. n n”Congress has delegated tariff powers before, but never without limits,” said Clark Packard, a trade expert at the Cato Institute who opposes the current policy. “This is not a blank check.” n nLegal opponents also reference the landmark 1952 Supreme Court decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, where the court ruled that President Harry Truman exceeded his authority by seizing steel mills during the Korean War. That case established that even in emergencies, presidential power must stem from either the Constitution or statutory law. n n”Even in foreign affairs, the president has no inherent emergency powers,” said Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. n nNevertheless, courts have historically deferred to presidents on national security and foreign policy. Observers believe the Supreme Court may uphold at least part of Trump’s tariff agenda—either by preserving all measures or invalidating some while leaving enough intact for a political victory. n n”A ruling in favor would be a major endorsement of his approach to executive authority,” Packard said. “But if the court approves these tariffs, it could open the door to far-reaching expansions of presidential power.” n— news from Newsweek
— News Original —
Trump’s Signature Economic Issue Faces Major Test At Supreme Court
In acting alone to impose his sweeping trade agenda, President Donald Trump bet that he could expand executive power without facing pushback from Congress or the courts. n nTrump was right about Congress — Republicans in charge of the House and Senate backed his decision to rewrite U.S. tariff policy without seeking legislative approval — and now his gamble may pay off as well at the Supreme Court, where the administration is seeking final say on the president ‘s signature economic issue. n nThe court on Thursday set a Nov. 5 date to hear oral arguments challenging the legality of Trump ‘s tariffs. Earlier this month the court agreed to fast-track two tariff-related cases in a sign that it could issue a decision by the end of the year. n nLower courts have repeatedly ruled against the administration ‘s authority in imposing broad and sweeping tariffs on an emergency basis. But the Supreme Court has given Trump a wide degree of latitude in his second term to exert executive authority and could wind up ruling in his favor on the tariff issue, legal and trade experts told Newsweek. n n”This Supreme Court has been very deferential to President Trump in many respects,” said Alan Wm. Wolff, a former deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization. When it comes to tariffs, “I think the administration will ultimately get a victory.” n nA landmark victory for Trump on trade is not a foregone conclusion. The court, which has a majority of six conservative justices, has ruled against the president in some cases related to executive power. n nAnd Wolff and others said it ‘s unclear how the justices would justify Trump ‘s unilateral decision to impose tariffs. Constitution law does not give the president authority to impose tariffs. Courts in the past have reigned in presidents seeking to levy tariffs on their own by invoking national security concerns. n n”The concern is that if we allow it here that could creep into other laws that give the executive branch” greater power, Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in one of the cases that is now before the Supreme Court, told Newsweek. n nThe Constitution grants Congress the power to “collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” and “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” according to Article 1, Section 8. There is no mention of presidential authority to unilaterally set tariff policy. n nThe Trump administration invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 law known as IEEPA, to place global tariffs of 10 percent on all imports, as well as higher tariffs on specific countries and goods. The tariffs have raised billions in new revenue. They ‘ve also sparked a trade war as China and other countries have retaliated with new tariffs against American goods while seeking better trading terms with the U.S. n nSeveral small businesses and states challenged the tariffs in court. A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. and the Court of International Trade ruled that Trump ‘s tariffs amounted to executive overreach. The federal appeals court left the tariffs in place while the administration appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. n nOpponents have argued the tariffs should be struck down because the emergency powers act doesn ‘t explicitly give the president power to raise tariffs. n nTrump has said the United States would face an “economic disaster” if the tariffs are removed. The president and senior administration officials continue to frame the issue as a matter of national security, arguing that tariffs are needed to stop the flow of fentanyl into the country and secure stronger trade deals with China and other rivals. n n”The fact of the matter is that President Trump has acted lawfully by using the tariff powers granted to him by Congress in IEEPA to deal with national emergencies and to safeguard our national security and economy. We look forward to ultimate victory on this matter with the Supreme Court,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement to Newsweek. n nCongress has at times given a president leeway to impose certain tariffs, and Trump isn ‘t the first president to use his executive authority to act on the issue. n nIn 2003, President George W. Bush imposed tariffs on imported steel that lasted for roughly nine months. In 1971, President Richard Nixon created a 10 percent charge on all imports to combat a currency crisis. Nixon lifted the surcharge after four months. n nCritics of Trump ‘s tariffs argue that, in both those cases, the tariffs were temporary and targeted, unlike the current duties on a wide range of goods from dozens of countries. n n”There are examples of Congress delegating tariff authority to the executive branch, but it ‘s not a carte blanche,” said Clark Packard, a trade expert at the Cato Institute who opposes Trump ‘s tariffs. n nOpponents also cite the landmark 1952 Supreme Court ruling Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, in which the court ruled that President Harry Truman lacked the authority to nationalize the country ‘s steel mills in response to a potential union strike during the Korean War. The case set the precedent that presidents can ‘t overstep their executive authority in moments of national emergency. n n”Even when it comes to foreign policy, the president ‘s authority may still only come from the constitution or federal statute. He has no inherent power in a national emergency,” said Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. n nStill, courts have long deferred to presidents on issues of national security and foreign affairs. Court watchers and trade experts said it ‘s possible the Supreme Court will defer to Trump on his tariff agenda, either by allowing all of the tariffs to remain in place or by striking some of them down but leaving enough in place for the president to claim victory. n nA win at the Supreme Court “would be an enormous validation of his approach” to the use of executive power on tariffs and other issues, Packard said. But “if the court greenlights these tariffs, that really truly opens up a Pandora ‘s box.”