SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments in Tariff Challenges
Yesterday morning, a global audience watched the U.S. Supreme Court’s livestream as justices heard oral arguments regarding lawsuits over President Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs. Government attorneys defended the administration’s reasoning for imposing the tariffs, while attorneys representing several U.S. states and small businesses urged the Court to end them.
Pacific Legal Foundation Lawsuit
In April, the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a separate lawsuit on behalf of 11 American small businesses. This case, Princess Awesome v. United States Customs and Border Protection, is currently on hold at the Court of International Trade while the Supreme Court reviews related issues.
PLF submitted a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to declare that the president exceeded his authority by imposing broad tariffs.
Arguments from the Challengers
The challengers contended that the tariffs surpass presidential power. They argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the administration the expansive authority it claims.
“The challengers argued that the tariffs exceed the president’s authority and that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not convey the broad powers the administration claims it does.”
PLF Attorneys Discuss Oral Arguments
Oliver Dunford, one of the lawyers handling the Princess Awesome case, listened to the Supreme Court’s oral arguments and shared insights in a livestream with colleague Damien Schiff.
Summary
The Supreme Court is reviewing whether President Trump’s tariff imposition exceeds legal authority under IEEPA, with arguments reflecting deep divisions over executive power and its limits.
Author’s summary: The Supreme Court’s review of President Trump’s tariffs raises important questions about executive power and the limits of authority under international emergency laws.