The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on whether President Donald Trump exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Lower courts have ruled that IEEPA does not authorize such broad trade actions without clear congressional approval. Trump’s administration argues otherwise, saying the statute empowers the president to “regulate importation” during declared emergencies, which they interpret to include the power to impose tariffs.
The issue stems from a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in late August, where in a 7‑4 ruling that most of Trump’s global tariffs were found unlawful under IEEPA. However, enforcement of the lower court orders has been temporarily paused while the government pursues its appeal. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the consolidated challenges in November, fast‑tracking the case given its economic and constitutional importance.
Legal scholars say the outcome could reshape presidential power. One professor noted that while no prior president has used IEEPA to impose global import taxes, there is precedent for using similar emergency powers under earlier statutes. The case will test whether statutory phrases like “regulate importation” can be interpreted to empower tariffs, even when IEEPA does not explicitly mention duties, taxes, or tariffs.
The Trump administration contends that emergencies like fentanyl smuggling and trade deficits justify invoking IEEPA for tariff authority. Opponents argue the power to tax and to levy import duties lies exclusively with Congress under the Constitution. They also invoke the “major questions” doctrine, which requires that Congress clearly authorize presidential actions that have vast economic or political impact. If the Supreme Court sides with Trump, it could validate a major expansion of executive power over trade. If not, many of his tariff initiatives may be struck down or modified.
