“We decide whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose tariffs.” That is the first sentence of Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion issued on Feb. 20 regarding the much-awaited question of the legality of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump.
Our Supreme Court divided 6-3 on this, with conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas fully dissenting. Other justices expressed individual concerns. However, the majority was clear in reaffirming that our Constitution assigns tariff authority to Congress.
This decision confirms judgments of lower courts. Last May, the United States Court of International Trade also emphasized that, under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the authority to regulate trade. This fundamental power is not overridden by any power of the president to address trade challenges in an emergency.
“The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President’s use of tariffs as leverage,” a three-judge panel said in the decision to issue a permanent injunction on the blanket tariff orders issued by Trump since January 2025.
This earlier ruling came in response to two lawsuits. One was filed by the Liberty Justice Center, a nonpartisan organization, on behalf of five small U.S. companies that import goods from countries targeted by Trump’s tariffs. The other was filed by a dozen state governments within the United States.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat, is coordinating the states’ efforts against the administration. He has declared the tariffs to be economically devastating, reckless and unlawful.
Small businesses seeking relief include an importer of wine and other alcoholic beverages based in New York and a maker of educational kits and musical instruments located in Virginia.
IEEPA, on which Trump based tariff authority until now, was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in December 1977. The law authorizes the president to declare “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States,” with the proviso that such threats must originate “in whole or substantial part outside the United States,” and requires the president to provide updates to Congress every six months.
An incentive for this legislation was a desire in Congress to clarify and restrict presidential actions justified under the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act, a law reflected in the emergency leading to U.S. entry into World War I. The immediate incentive for our nation to enter that war was Germany’s declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare.
The 1917 law had been used to justify a variety of presidential initiatives, not all related to foreign policy and international developments. Declared national emergencies that were technically still in effect included the 1933 banking crisis generated by hoarding cash and gold, the 1950 Korean War crisis, a 1970 emergency related to a strike by postal workers and a 1971 emergency related to the deteriorating fiscal condition of the federal government.
Key powers granted include the ability to block transactions and take control of the assets of the parties involved in the threats. Currently, this section has been used by the Trump administration to justify new tariffs.
IEEPA was passed during a time of congressional assertiveness. Another important factor, no doubt, was President Carter’s fixation on clarity, which he carried to counterproductive extremes.
Today, thankfully, there is no world war or economic depression.
The judicial veto of presidential overreach shows our system is working. The rule of law is confirmed.