The Other Arguments in Trump’s Tariffs Case
When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Wednesday regarding challenges to the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) through a series of executive orders earlier this year, three different lawyers will present their cases. They represent small businesses, a coalition of 12 states, and the Trump administration defending the tariffs.
In addition to these oral arguments, the justices will consider 44 “friend of the court” briefs submitted by a diverse group. These include members of Congress, trade experts, legal scholars, think tanks established by former Vice President Mike Pence and presidential adviser Stephen Miller, as well as industry representatives like the watch industry and a vineyard owner.
Range of Topics in the Briefs
The briefs address a broad spectrum of issues, from the economic effects of the tariffs to the legal history of trade regulations. Notably, critics of the tariffs outnumber their supporters significantly in these filings.
Focus on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
Several briefs concentrate on the statutory text of IEEPA itself. One brief, submitted on behalf of 207 members of Congress including Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, argues that the Act does not grant the president authority to impose tariffs.
"IEEPA does not give the president the power to impose the tariffs."
This legal interpretation challenges the administration's justification for the tariffs and forms a key part of the case against them.
Summary
The Supreme Court’s impending decision involves complex legal interpretations with strong opposition to Trump’s tariff authority under IEEPA, reflecting wide-ranging concerns from lawmakers and experts alike.
Author’s summary: The case tests the limits of presidential power under IEEPA, with opponents emphasizing statutory constraints and broad legal opposition.