Key Takeaways

• The Federal Circuit ruled that President Trump lacked authority for his broad emergency tariffs.
• Judges used the major questions doctrine to demand clear approval from Congress.
• The court paused its decision until mid-October so the administration can appeal.
• Experts warn the case could split the Supreme Court over executive vs. legislative power.
• Critics say the tariffs were not only legally shaky but also bad policy.

Introduction

Last week, an appeals court said President Trump overstepped his power when he slapped on sweeping trade fees. These so-called Trump tariffs were meant to hit back at foreign trade barriers. However, judges found the president veered far beyond what Congress allowed. This clash now heads toward the Supreme Court.

Why the Court Rejected the Trump Tariffs

On Friday, a full panel of federal judges agreed that Trump tariffs broke the law. They upheld a lower court’s ruling that the president cannot create big, new taxes on imports without explicit approval from Congress. The judges pointed to a law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. That law lets a president impose certain limits during national emergencies, but it does not mention tariffs.

Instead, the court said, Congress alone holds the power to lay and collect duties. The judges leaned on the major questions doctrine. This rule says courts should require clear, specific language from lawmakers before approving moves of vast economic or political impact. Because IEEPA never spelled out tariff authority, the judges concluded Trump pushed past his lawful reach.

Meanwhile, the court paused its own decision until mid-October. This stay means the Trump tariffs remain in effect for now. The administration can use that time to ask the Supreme Court for a review.

What the Major Questions Doctrine Means

The major questions doctrine demands clarity when a law affects big issues. Therefore, courts will not assume Congress quietly handed over huge powers. In this case, the judges held that Congress did not clearly say the president could impose new tariffs under IEEPA.

Consequently, courts must protect the balance of power. They ensure that lawmakers, not the president alone, decide on major economic policies. Otherwise, one branch of government could gain too much control.

Presidential Power vs. Congress

Article I of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority over trade duties. In contrast, Article II lets the president enforce treaties, but only with Senate approval. Over time, Congress has granted certain regulatory powers to the White House. Yet each grant must follow an “intelligible principle.” That means lawmakers must spell out clear standards for action.

Here, the court found no intelligible principle to support the Trump tariffs. Even though IEEPA uses broad words like “regulate imports,” it never tied that power to setting duties. Historically, presidents have asked Congress for tariff authority. Thus, judges saw no reason to rewrite history and add a hidden power to IEEPA.

Why the Case Might Split the Supreme Court

Jonathan Adler, a noted legal commentator, argues this case will challenge the high court. On one hand, the Constitution seems clear: only Congress can set tariffs. On the other, past rulings give presidents wide latitude in national security.

For example, courts often defer to the White House in foreign affairs. Judges point to cases like Curtiss-Wright, where the president held broad war powers. Likewise, some justices have hinted that courts should restrain the major questions doctrine in security matters. Therefore, the Supreme Court may split over how much deference to give the president.

Adler warns that even though the Trump tariffs are “bad policy,” legal precedents leave room for debate. He says the case turns on how judges read old statutes. Because IEEPA has never been used for tariffs, the justices will wrestle with history, text, and doctrine.

Policy Concerns and Next Steps

Beyond legal drama, the Trump tariffs faced political backlash. Businesses warned of higher costs and strained supply chains. Consumers feared higher prices on everyday goods. Critics said the policy could trigger retaliatory measures abroad.

Adler argues that if Congress thinks IEEPA falls short, lawmakers should write new laws. Clear, tailored rules could equip presidents to act in modern emergencies without overreach. Until then, however, courts will guard against vague delegations.

In the coming months, the Supreme Court must decide whether to hear the case. If it does, the justices will settle a key question: Can the president unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs during a declared emergency? Their answer will shape the scope of executive power for years to come.

FAQs

Why did the Federal Circuit reject the Trump tariffs?

The judges found no clear law in IEEPA authorizing the president to set import duties. They used the major questions doctrine to require explicit congressional approval.

What is the major questions doctrine?

It’s a legal principle that courts demand clear, specific language from lawmakers for decisions with huge economic or political impact.

Could the Supreme Court overturn this ruling?

Yes. The Trump administration can ask the high court to review the case. If accepted, justices will decide whether the president exceeded his authority.

What happens if the Supreme Court splits?

A tied vote would leave the appeals court’s decision in place. That outcome would block the Trump tariffs permanently unless Congress steps in with new legislation.