The Supreme Court is weighing whether to expand presidential power in a case over Donald Trump’s global tariffs, with key constitutional issues potentially undermining the president’s argument. During recent oral arguments, justices raised concerns about the separation of powers, particularly the absence of Congress’ role in Trump’s sweeping trade plan, which he described as vital to foreign policy and national security.
Legal experts, including Brent Skorup of the Cato Institute, noted that the court is navigating a tension between longstanding deference to the executive in foreign affairs and recent applications of the major questions doctrine, which demands clear legislative authority for major policies. Skorup suggests the justices may favor the latter trend, which could lead to a ruling that limits Trump’s tariff authority, despite his claims that the tariffs are critical to the country’s economic wellbeing.
Trump has been vocal in his defense, emphasizing the potential financial implications of an unfavorable ruling, including a potential refund process exceeding $3 trillion. He has argued that the tariffs are a necessary measure to address the trade deficit and opioid epidemic, even though the legal basis for the tariffs remains disputed. The justices, including both Trump and Obama appointees, have pressed the solicitor general on how the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act allows the president to unilaterally enact tariffs, highlighting the legal ambiguity surrounding the case.
While the court may take an avoidant approach to the non-delegation doctrine, as suggested by law professor Ilan Wur, some justices may use this as a tool to strike down executive overreach, as seen in past rulings like West Virginia v. EPA. A decision is anticipated by late June, with significant consequences for the scope of presidential power in shaping international trade policies.