The Trump administration on Wednesday asked the US Supreme Court to hear its bid to preserve a wide-ranging set of tariffs, which were pursued under a 1977 law intended for emergencies. This move comes after a lower court invalidated most of the levies that are central to the Republican president’s economic and trade agenda.
The Department of Justice appealed an August 29 ruling by a federal appeals court, which found that the president had overstepped his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The tariffs will remain in effect for now, as the appeals court paused its order to give the administration time to seek Supreme Court review.
The Department of Justice requested that the Supreme Court decide by September 10 whether it would hear the case. It also proposed an accelerated timetable for resolving the litigation, with oral arguments in the first week of November. Lawyers for the small businesses challenging the tariffs are not opposing the government’s request, with one attorney, Jeffrey Schwab of Liberty Justice Center, stating he was confident they would prevail. “We hope for a prompt resolution of this case for our clients,” Schwab said.
The tariffs are part of a trade war instigated by Trump since he returned to the presidency, which has strained relations with trading partners, increased financial market volatility, and fueled global economic uncertainty. Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of US foreign policy, using them to apply political pressure, renegotiate trade deals, and extract concessions from countries that export to the United States.
The litigation concerns Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose “reciprocal” tariffs in April to address trade deficits, as well as separate tariffs announced in February on China, Canada, and Mexico to curb illicit drug trafficking. IEEPA grants the president power to deal with “an unusual and extraordinary threat” during a national emergency and has historically been used for sanctions or asset freezes. Before Trump, the law had never been used to impose tariffs.
The appeals court’s 7-4 ruling stated that it was unlikely Congress intended to grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs when it enacted IEEPA. The court said the president’s power to “regulate” imports under the law does not include the power to impose tariffs. The appeals court also found that the administration’s broad interpretation of IEEPA violates the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine, which requires executive actions of vast economic and political significance to have clear authorization from Congress.
