The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments this week on whether former President Donald Trump lawfully imposed sweeping tariffs under a 1977 emergency powers law, marking a major test of one of his key economic policies. While Trump lost at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, his legal team has heavily relied on a 67-page dissenting opinion by Judge Richard Taranto — an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama — who argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) grants the president broad authority in foreign affairs during national emergencies.
Taranto’s dissent, which has been cited 16 times in filings by U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, contends that Congress made an “eyes-open” decision to delegate significant economic power to the president, a view that stands in contrast to the Federal Circuit’s majority ruling. The court had previously determined that Trump exceeded his authority by using IEEPA to justify tariffs impacting trillions of dollars in trade. Legal experts note that Taranto’s opinion could offer a persuasive “roadmap” for the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, which has previously invoked the “major questions doctrine” to limit executive power in cases involving President Joe Biden.
Challengers to Trump’s tariffs, including several Democratic-led states and business groups, argue that the U.S. Constitution reserves taxation and tariff powers for Congress, not the president. They contend that IEEPA was never intended for such broad economic measures. Trump, who cited America’s persistent trade deficit as a “national emergency,” has defended the tariffs as a tool to renegotiate trade deals and strengthen U.S. economic security. The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for presidential authority over international trade and emergency economic actions.
Pic Courtesy: google/ images are subject to copyright
