The Other Arguments in Trump’s Tariffs Case
When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Wednesday regarding the challenges to the tariffs that President Donald Trump introduced under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) through several executive orders earlier this year, the justices will listen to three diverse perspectives: lawyers representing small businesses, a coalition of twelve states, and the Trump administration defending the policy.
Beyond the oral arguments, the Court will review forty-four “friend of the court” briefs. These were submitted by members of Congress, trade specialists, legal scholars, policy institutes linked to former Vice President Mike Pence and presidential adviser Stephen Miller, as well as representatives from the watch industry and a vineyard owner.
These briefs explore a wide spectrum of concerns, from the economic effects of the tariffs to the broader legal history of U.S. trade regulation. Notably, those opposing the tariffs far outnumber their supporters.
Key Arguments from the Briefs
- Some filings focus closely on the legal wording of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
- A submission on behalf of 207 members of Congress, including Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, argues that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose such tariffs.
“IEEPA does not give the president the power to impose the tariffs,” reads the congressional brief signed by 207 lawmakers, including Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
Author’s Summary
The Supreme Court case on Trump’s IEEPA tariffs has drawn attention from lawmakers, experts, and industries, with most expressing strong opposition to expanding presidential trade powers.