President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to unilaterally impose tariffs on major U.S. trading partners has become one of the most anticipated cases before the Supreme Court this term. The case, which could have far-reaching implications for executive power, will determine whether Trump’s actions under the law are constitutional and whether such powers can be expanded in the future.
Trump claimed that the persistent U.S. trade deficit, which has existed for nearly 50 years, constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary” threat, justifying his use of IEEPA. However, plaintiffs argue that the law has never been used to impose tariffs and that doing so would drastically expand executive authority at the expense of Congress. Lower courts, including the U.S. Court of International Trade, have previously ruled against the administration, stating that Trump’s invocation of IEEPA was not “unbounded.”
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the administration, it could set a precedent allowing future presidents to invoke national emergencies as a justification for broad executive powers without congressional approval. This has raised concerns among legal experts, who warn that such a ruling could have far-reaching implications for the separation of powers and the limits of presidential authority.