High Yield Markets
  • World News
  • Politics
  • Investing
  • Stock
  • Editor’s Pick
Editor's PickInvesting

Legal Brief: Even in Emergencies, the President Cannot Seize Congress’s Tariff Powers

by July 9, 2025
July 9, 2025

Thomas A. Berry, Brent Skorup, and Charles Brandt

Shortly after taking office, President Trump issued a series of executive orders imposing new duties on imports from dozens of countries, resulting in rapid increases and (partial) decreases in tariff rates, from 10 to 145 percent. The president claims the tariffs are necessary to combat illegal drug trafficking and trade imbalances, both of which he has declared “national emergencies.” Therefore, he relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on nearly every US trading partner.

trump tariffs

The IEEPA gives the president broad powers to block transactions between Americans and foreign citizens when responding to an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” And for decades, presidents have used this law to impose economic sanctions on nations or individuals. But this is the first time a president has imposed tariffs under the IEEPA.

The new tariffs have imposed large costs on many owners of American businesses. A group of states and small businesses, including VOS Selections, Inc.—a family-owned wine and spirits company—sued the president in the US Court of International Trade (CIT), to block the tariffs. They argued that setting duties exceeded the president’s legal authority under IEEPA and violated the Constitution.

The CIT agreed with VOS Selections and permanently enjoined the tariffs. Now, the administration has appealed to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Cato has filed an amicus brief in support of VOS Selections.

In our brief, we provide historical context about Congress’s constitutional role in tariff policy and the IEEPA’s original purpose. Under recent Supreme Court precedent, Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts must independently determine the best reading of a statute and not automatically defer to the executive’s interpretation. We highlight several problems with the administration’s position.

First, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution vests the power to impose tariffs solely in Congress. For more than a century, Congress set tariff rates directly, even in times of war and national crisis. The reason for this longstanding practice is clear: Congress cannot vest duty-setting power—a legislative power—with the president, just as Congress cannot vest judicial power with the president or the Speaker of the House.

Second, the IEEPA’s text provides no support for the president’s tariff authority. When Congress has delegated some tariff authority to the president, it has done so clearly and explicitly, as in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974. The IEEPA is different. It makes no mention of “tariffs” or “duties,” and no president has used it to impose tariffs in the nearly 50 years since it became law—until now.

Finally, the government’s position runs contrary to IEEPA’s purpose. Congress passed the IEEPA to limit executive power during emergencies. Even President Franklin Roosevelt—who had an expansive theory of presidential power and was president during an economic depression and a global war—never used IEEPA’s more powerful predecessor, the Trading with the Enemy Act, to modify tariffs.

It is thus ironic—and legally untenable—for a president to invoke IEEPA for tariff-setting authority that no president has ever exercised. The Court should reject the government’s position, affirm the CIT’s decision, and block the imposition of these tariffs.

previous post
WAYNE ROOT: Trump Gives Us the Best First 6 Months of Any President in History…and the Best Week Ever…But Epstein Announcement Threatens It All. MAGA Is Hanging in Balance. Here is What Must Be Done.
next post
DEVELOPING: UFC Legend Randy Couture Severely Injured in Fiery Car Crash – Airlifted to Hospital

You may also like

Are Stablecoins CBDCs in Disguise? No

August 1, 2025

Skinner v. Louisiana Brief: Prosecutors Must Be Held...

July 31, 2025

A Good Start: Congress Cuts Funding for USAID...

July 31, 2025

Trump Punishes Brazilian Censor in Chief, But Tariffs...

July 31, 2025

A Response to Misinformation Criticism

July 30, 2025

Former Intel CEO Calls for a US Sovereign...

July 30, 2025

Election Policy Roundup

July 30, 2025

Why I Signed the Economists’ Amicus Brief Challenging...

July 30, 2025

Private School Survey: What’s Behind Seemingly Cooling Enrollment?

July 30, 2025

Minimum Wage Increases Hurt Lower-Skilled Workers

July 30, 2025
Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get Premium Articles For Free


Your information is secure and your privacy is protected. By opting in you agree to receive emails from us. Remember that you can opt-out any time, we hate spam too!

Recent Posts

  • Are Stablecoins CBDCs in Disguise? No

    August 1, 2025
  • Skinner v. Louisiana Brief: Prosecutors Must Be Held Accountable for Withholding Exculpatory Evidence

    July 31, 2025
  • A Good Start: Congress Cuts Funding for USAID and Other Foreign Aid Programs

    July 31, 2025
  • Trump Punishes Brazilian Censor in Chief, But Tariffs and Censorship at Home Make Matters Worse

    July 31, 2025
  • A Response to Misinformation Criticism

    July 30, 2025
  • About Us
  • Contacts
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Email Whitelisting

Copyright © 2025 highyieldmarkets.com | All Rights Reserved

High Yield Markets
  • World News
  • Politics
  • Investing
  • Stock
  • Editor’s Pick