SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments in Tariff Challenges
Yesterday morning, a global audience tuned in to the livestream of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in lawsuits concerning President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs. Government attorneys defended the administration’s justification for introducing the tariffs, while two groups of attorneys petitioned the Court to end them on behalf of several U.S. states and multiple small businesses.
Pacific Legal Foundation’s Role
In April, the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a separate lawsuit representing eleven American small businesses in the case Princess Awesome v. United States Customs and Border Protection. The Court of International Trade paused this case pending the Supreme Court’s review of the broader tariff issues.
Despite the pause, PLF submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court urging justices to find that the president exceeded his constitutional authority by imposing such extensive tariffs.
Legal Expert Commentary
PLF attorney Oliver Dunford, one of the litigators in the Princess Awesome case, joined colleague Damien Schiff in a livestream discussion following the Court’s session. They analyzed the arguments presented by both sides and the potential implications of the Court’s decision.
“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.”
Author’s Summary
The Supreme Court heard arguments on President Trump’s tariff powers as legal experts debated whether his administration overstepped its authority under federal law.