As the United States Supreme Court returns to the bench, there are a number of key cases expected to be heard by the Justices in the coming weeks.
Among them is a consolidated case concerning the tariffs levied by President Donald Trump’s (R) earlier this year.
The question before the Justices this fall asks whether or not a 1977 statute authorizes the President of the United States to directly impose tariffs on foreign goods.
Justices will also be considering whether the specific executive orders issued by the President serve as an appropriate basis for imposing tariffs under the federal law.
Lastly, if the Justices determine that this is the case, they will decide whether or not this represents an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the president.
These cases initially arose in response to President’s Trump decision to impose tariffs on a wide variety of goods entering the country from many places around the world via a series of executive orders this past spring.
Known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, the 1977 law at the heart of this case gives the president broad authority to regulate economic transactions under a declared emergency.
Reuters reports that, despite having been invoked by prior presidents, IEEPA has never before been used by the chief executive to impose tariffs. Historically, presidents have used their authority under IEEPA to impose sanctions on enemies or freeze assets.
Trump’s novel usage of the federal provision prompted many to challenge the resulting tariffs in court, paving the way for the Supreme Court to issue an official interpretation of the authority granted by the IEEPA and the constitutionality of these implications.
Later this fall, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this consolidated case, which incorporates both Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, both cases directly questioning the legality and constitutionality of Trump’s tariffs.
At issue in this combined case are two key categories of tariffs imposed by the President: “trafficking tariffs” and “reciprocal tariffs.”
While trafficking tariffs focused specifically on goods from Canada, China, and, Mexico — countries that the President believes have not done enough to stem the flow of fentanyl into the country — reciprocal tariffs were imposed upon a wide range of nations, starting at a rate of at least 10 percent.
In issuing these tariffs, President Trump relied upon the authority granted in IEEPA to presidents during times of emergency to “regulate…importation” of “property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest.”
At the lower court level, judges in both cases initially found the tariffs to be illegal and in excess of the President’s power. Despite these rulings, the tariffs have remained in place as this litigation winds its way through the legal system.
According to the BBC, the consequences of a ruling against the Trump Administration in this case are unknown, as it is not immediately clear if the United States would have to pay back the billions of dollars collected in tariffs over the past few months should the Supreme Court deem them illegal or unconstitutional.
Other tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the authority granted by different laws — such as those on steel, aluminum, and cars — will not be impacted by the outcome of this case.
“The fact of the matter is that President Trump has acted lawfully by using the tariff powers granted to him by Congress in IEEPA to deal with national emergencies and to safeguard our national security and economy,” said White House spokesperson Kush Desai. “We look forward to ultimate victory on this matter with the Supreme Court.”
Jeffrey Schwab, a lawyer with the Liberty Justice Center, the legal group representing some of the challengers in this case, expressed a markedly different point of view.
“Congress, not the president alone, has the constitutional power to impose tariffs,” he said.
The Supreme Court will be taking up this case during the first week of their November term later this year.
