Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

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

by July 9, 2025
July 9, 2025
Legal Brief: Even in Emergencies, the President Cannot Seize Congress’s Tariff Powers

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.

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.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Far-left firebrand says she ‘never had a concern’ about Biden’s mental state as House probe heats up
next post
Henry Hazlitt’s Timeless Lesson: Still Refuting Today’s Economic Nonsense

You may also like

Don’t Conflate US and Israeli Border Security Challenges

October 18, 2023

More on Free Trade’s “Pro-Poor Bias”

March 29, 2024

On Investigating Presidents

June 12, 2023

Increased Medicaid Coverage Is Not Improving Low Birth...

June 13, 2023

A Crackdown on Crypto Won’t Stop Hamas

October 18, 2023

What Trump Has Done and Imminently Plans to...

February 3, 2025

The “Digital Gold” Fallacy, or Why Bitcoin Can’t...

November 29, 2024

Four GOP Presidential Candidates Say They’ll Close Education...

August 25, 2023

Student Loan Forgiveness and Standing

July 3, 2023

Should the Fed Devalue Our Currency to Implement...

July 29, 2022

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Seizing AI’s Trillion Dollar Cyber Opportunity

      July 9, 2025
    • Biden doctor pleads the Fifth in speedy House closed-door interview

      July 9, 2025
    • The Seasonality Trend Driving XLK and XLI to New Highs

      July 9, 2025
    • Want Faster, Lower Risk Trades? Use This Setup

      July 9, 2025
    • Henry Hazlitt’s Timeless Lesson: Still Refuting Today’s Economic Nonsense

      July 9, 2025
    • Legal Brief: Even in Emergencies, the President Cannot Seize Congress’s Tariff Powers

      July 9, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,429)
    • Investing (2,112)
    • Politics (15,986)
    • Stocks (3,197)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved