Former President Donald Trump has requested the Supreme Court to expedite its decision. This decision has particular significance to the tariffs his administration imposed on imports from China. Originally instituted during his presidency, these tariffs have been carried forward by the administration of current President Joe Biden. Businesses won a legal battle against the legality of these tariffs in federal district and appellate courts. That last argument proved decisive, leading the full 11-member appellate court to rule 7-4 against the tariffs.
Trump initially imposed the tariffs as a negotiating tactic in his grander strategy to negotiate trade deals. In the process, he explicitly targeted allies, including the European Union and Japan. The former president reached to this same law—declaring a national emergency—to justify the tariffs. He focused on all imports from Canada, China and Mexico in particular. The appeals court found that the majority of these tariffs were an unlawful exercise of the extraordinary powers Congress entrusted to the president. This decision challenged the legal authority underlying those tariffs.
And though tariffs are a tax, the Constitution expressly delegates that authority to Congress. Nevertheless, according to Trump’s administration, the executive branch still has sweeping power to levy import tariffs independent of Congress’ intent under federal statute. Solicitor General D. John Sauer saluted the Supreme Court justices for their courage in taking up the case. He needs them to hear arguments by early November, given the ruling’s enormously consequential impact.
“The stakes in this case could not be higher,” – D. John Sauer, Solicitor General.
The continuing court fight is hugely important. It hits a revenue source that had already generated $159 billion in tariffs by late August—more than twice the amount collected in the same timeframe of last year. Trump’s aggressive use of tariffs has pumped plenty of uncertainty into global markets. They have further jeopardized important relationships with trading partners and incited fears of price hikes and reduced economic growth.
Yet some tariffs, especially on foreign steel, aluminum, and autos, were left out of the appeals court decision. Trump may still impose tariffs under alternative laws. These options come with greater constraints regarding their implementation speed and severity.
Jeffrey Schwab is senior counsel and director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center. He highlighted the unique effect these tariffs are having on small businesses. Too many are still suffering, weighed down by the burden of rising costs and worry.
“These unlawful tariffs are inflicting serious harm on small businesses and jeopardizing their survival. We hope for a prompt resolution of this case for our clients,” – Jeffrey Schwab, Liberty Justice Center.
The Supreme Court’s decision to consider this case marks another chapter in a series of legal challenges stemming from Trump’s administration, which he significantly influenced during his time in office. As legal arguments unfold, many await clarity on how this ruling may reshape trade policy and its repercussions on both domestic businesses and international relations.
