The legal battle surrounding former President Donald Trump’s tariffs on goods from China, Mexico, and Canada may soon escalate to the Supreme Court. The underlying case stems from Trump’s decision in February. To further his goal of destroying the fentanyl scourge through a blanket 10% tariff on goods from most countries. While the Trump administration seeks to reverse a court ruling that deemed the tariffs an overreach of presidential power, legal experts remain divided on the potential outcomes.
Trade Trump’s tariffs — which he has imposed using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — have come under the most fire. They featured steep increases in tariffs on imports from the US’s “strategic competitors,” including the US’s traditional allies like China and the EU. And those tariffs were particularly targeted at consumer goods like the toys manufactured by Story Time Toys, owned by Kara Dyer.
In a ruling issued late last month, a court found that Trump had overstepped his authority in placing these tariffs. The Trump administration has asked the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to stop this decision from going into effect. That’s crucial, because it would then give them time to prepare for a possible appeal to the Supreme Court.
“Absent at least interim relief from this Court, the United States plans to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court tomorrow to avoid the irreparable national-security and economic harms at stake.” – The Trump administration
At its heart, the administration’s argument underscores an important level of principle. Foreign policy and economic policy should be set by our political branches, not our courts. They too claim that judicial intervention threatens to upend fragile diplomatic and trade negotiations. This would be a dangerous and entirely unfounded judiciary “power grab.”
Ilya Somin, a legal scholar at George Mason University, weighed in on the dangerous precedent set by the court’s decision. He remarked, “It’s not normal for the president of the United States to make such an enormous power grab and start the biggest trade war since the Great Depression.”
Meanwhile, Dmitry Grozoubinski, a former trade negotiator, noted that if the ruling is upheld, it could complicate future tariff implementations. He stated, “It will be a lot harder for him to raise tariffs in the future.”
I’m disappointed that the court upheld anything, but encouraged that the court recognized the issues. Yet she sent the news around with an expressiveness that communicated her excitement. She was understandably careful not to say what could happen. “I was incredibly happy and relieved but I’m still very cautious,” she said. Even more difficult, Dyer added, has been the unpredictable nature of tariffs that have thrown a wrench into her business’ long-term planning. “It’s just been so chaotic and so impossible to plan as a business.”
Terry Haines, founder of Pangaea Policy, said the original ruling seems larger at first blush. Higher courts may eventually limit its reach. He commented, “All these things are going to be litigated through and the president is probably going to be given the benefit of the doubt.” Haines noted that he would like to see more clarity as we move through legal challenges about future tariffs. “I want this to work its way through our court system so we have a little bit more certainty about what tariffs will be in the future.”
As this case progresses towards possible Supreme Court review, uncertainty looms over both domestic economic policies and international trade relations. The result would establish an important precedent in regards to the separation of powers between branches of government in economic affairs.