Supreme Court to Examine Presidential Use of Emergency Powers for Tariffs
On November 5, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in a pivotal case that questions the extent of presidential emergency powers. This case will address whether the president can utilize the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement significant tariffs on imports from various countries.
The implications of this case extend well beyond trade policies. The Court’s decision has the potential to influence whether emergency powers can be frequently used to bypass Congress, impacting the constitutional balance of powers and the limitations on presidential authority.
The case emerged after President Trump declared three national emergencies to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China. A subsequent declaration enabled a 10 percent global tariff and additional “reciprocal” tariffs of up to 50 percent on selected entities. Each declaration was justified as a reaction to “unusual and extraordinary threats” to U.S. national security, foreign policy, or economy.
In response, several corporations and states filed lawsuits in federal court. The Brennan Center has submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in these cases, arguing that persistent trade imbalances do not qualify as an emergency or an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” and that IEEPA does not authorize presidents to impose tariffs. The Court will decide if the statute grants presidents a “tariff pen” to bypass Congressional authority.
Understanding the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
IEEPA is one of 137 statutory powers the president can invoke after declaring a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act. Both IEEPA and the National Emergencies Act were established in the 1970s to limit executive overreach and ensure emergency powers were used only for genuine threats.
IEEPA allows the president to declare an emergency and take specific actions, such as “investigating, regulating, or prohibiting” financial transactions related to an “unusual and extraordinary threat” sourced outside the United States. Historically, this authority has been applied to sanctions on hostile foreign entities, not for imposing tariffs, especially on friendly nations.
Tariffs are typically governed by distinct trade laws that permit them under certain conditions. However, the administration argues that the term “regulate” in IEEPA is sufficiently broad to encompass tariff measures, even those exceeding what Congress allows in trade laws, and that courts should defer to the president’s judgment on national security.
Courts that have reviewed the merits of this argument have rejected this broad interpretation of “regulate,” with the Court of International Trade stating that allowing such a reading would unconstitutionally delegate Congress’s tariff power. The Brennan Center’s brief highlights that interpreting IEEPA to grant unexpected powers would contradict its purpose of limiting presidential use of emergency powers.
Implications for Constitutional Powers
According to the Constitution, Congress holds the power to “lay and collect duties” and manage foreign commerce. Over time, Congress has delegated some of this authority to the executive through laws that specify when tariffs can be imposed, usually with defined limits. President Trump’s approach seeks to bypass these legislative restrictions by invoking a national emergency through IEEPA, a law not associated with tariffs.
The administration argues that courts should not review the existence of an emergency or the criteria for invoking IEEPA, which requires an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” This stance is controversial because long-standing trade relationships do not fit the definition of an “emergency,” which suggests a sudden, unforeseen event.
If the Court upholds the president’s use of IEEPA for tariffs, it could create a precedent for using emergency declarations as a governance tool. Future presidents might claim non-existent emergencies to unilaterally address various issues, potentially upsetting the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
Potential Outcomes of the Supreme Court Review
The Court could reject the administration’s claim of unchecked presidential authority and invalidate the tariffs. This could be achieved by ruling there is no national emergency, that trade imbalances are not an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” or that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs under any conditions. Alternatively, the Court might decide that the statute only permits specific, proportionate measures linked to actual foreign threats, not global tariffs.
These rulings would reinforce Congress’s primary role in trade policy and affirm the principle that imposing global tariffs requires explicit statutory authorization. Conversely, if the Court sides with the president, allowing broad authority to declare emergencies and impose tariffs, it may encourage future presidents to exploit emergency powers to bypass Congress in pursuing policy objectives.
