The Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, following its decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v Trump.
Stefan Padfield, principal of the Free Enterprise Initiative and senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, commented on the implications of the ruling:
“President Trump imposed across-the-board tariffs to get countries that impose trade barriers against American companies and workers to come to the table and is negotiating tariff and trade deals on a country-by-country basis. The president is the ultimate dealmaker because he uses every tool available. Although the decision takes away one tool, as Justice Kavanaugh lays out in his dissent, it is ultimately a speed bump because the president can likely still end up roughly where he wants to go on tariffs using other legal authorities, but it will just take longer to get there.
“While the Court has ruled the President cannot use IEEPA to implement tariffs, Congress has delegated similar authority via the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301), the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232), the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338), and the Trading with the Enemy Act, which have more procedural hurdles to clear, but can be used to make our international trade relationships freer, fairer, and more secure.”
EJ Antoni, PhD, acting director of Heritage’s Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and chief economist at The Heritage Foundation also addressed Congress’s role:
“In light of this decision, we strongly encourage Congress to get off the sidelines and work with the White House to make America more competitive by rebalancing international commerce, achieving freer, fairer, and more secure trade. Likewise, Congress should build on the OBBB Act to make more reforms to regulation, taxation, and spending since government overreach in these areas has been the primary drag on our economy.”
The Supreme Court’s decision means that while IEEPA can no longer be used for imposing tariffs as previously done by President Trump’s administration, other legislative tools remain available for future actions on trade policy. These alternatives involve additional procedural steps but still allow for adjustments aimed at securing improved terms for U.S. international commerce.
