Context of the Question
President Donald Trump’s proposed and implemented tariffs—particularly the sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs announced in April 2025 on imports from China, Mexico, Canada, and the EU—have faced legal challenges questioning his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. These tariffs, justified as responses to national security threats like trade deficits and supply chain vulnerabilities, could generate trillions in revenue and disrupt global trade. Critics argue they exceed executive power, echoing challenges to President Joe Biden’s domestic policies that were struck down by the Supreme Court.
The core issue is the Court’s “major questions doctrine,” which requires “clear congressional authorization” for executive actions with vast economic or political significance. This doctrine invalidated several Biden initiatives, but its application to Trump’s tariffs—framed as foreign policy and national security measures—remains hotly debated. Oral arguments in consolidated cases (e.g., V.O.S. Selections Inc. v. Trump) are scheduled for November 5, 2025, with no decision yet as of November 1.
How the Doctrine Was Applied to Biden’s Policies
The conservative 6-3 Supreme Court majority has aggressively used the major questions doctrine to curb executive overreach in domestic matters:
- Student Loan Forgiveness (2022): Struck down Biden’s plan to cancel $400–$500 billion in debt, with Chief Justice John Roberts calling its scope “staggering.”
- Eviction Moratorium (2021): Invalidated under the CARES Act for lacking explicit authority.
- EPA Emissions Rules (2022): Rejected as exceeding the Clean Air Act’s bounds in West Virginia v. EPA.
These rulings emphasized that agencies (and by extension, the president) cannot invoke vague statutes for “transformative” actions without precise congressional language.
Application to Trump’s Tariffs: Key Arguments
Trump’s tariffs rely on IEEPA, which grants broad powers during “national emergencies” but does not explicitly mention “tariffs,” “duties,” or “taxes.” Lower courts, including a 7-4 Federal Circuit ruling in August 2025, applied the major questions doctrine to block them, noting their economic impact (potentially 5x larger than Biden’s loan forgiveness) and lack of clear delegation. The court argued tariffs are a core congressional power under Article I, Section 8, and IEEPA’s silence fails the doctrine’s test.
However, distinctions from Biden’s cases could lead to different treatment:
- Foreign Affairs Deference: Justices like Brett Kavanaugh have signaled the doctrine may not apply to national security or trade, where Congress historically grants presidents “substantial authority and flexibility.” Legal scholars Curtis Bradley and Jack Goldsmith argue IEEPA’s emergency context implies delegation for tariffs in foreign policy, unlike domestic regulations.
- Historical Precedent: Past trade acts (e.g., 1974 Trade Act) limited presidential tariff powers with procedures; IEEPA’s breadth was intentional for crises, not “unheralded” expansions like Biden’s moratorium.
- Consistency Test: Law professor Dan Epps calls this a “test of jurisprudential consistency” for the conservative majority—will they apply the same scrutiny to a Republican president? Striking them down could appear even-handed; upholding might invite accusations of partisanship.
| Aspect | Biden’s Policies | Trump’s Tariffs |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Statute | Vague domestic laws (e.g., HEROES Act, Clean Air Act) | IEEPA (emergency foreign powers) |
| Economic Scale | $400–$500B (loans); billions (EPA rules) | Trillions in potential revenue/disruption |
| Court’s Prior View | “Major question”; no clear authority → Struck down | Foreign policy exception? Deference likely |
| Lower Court Rulings | Often upheld Biden initially | Blocked tariffs (e.g., Federal Circuit 7-4) |
| Key Tension | Domestic overreach | Congressional trade power vs. executive flexibility |
Predictions and Potential Outcomes
Analyses predict the Court will likely not treat Trump’s tariffs the same as Biden’s policies, distinguishing them on foreign affairs grounds to uphold broad executive authority:
- Uphold Tariffs (Likely, per Conservative Views): The 6-3 majority has reversed ~24 lower-court injunctions against Trump-era actions (e.g., immigration, spending cuts), favoring the executive during litigation. Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence and Goldsmith’s writings suggest a “coin toss” at worst, but deference tilts toward Trump.
- Strike Down (Less Likely): If applying the doctrine strictly, tariffs fail for lacking explicit language, per the Peterson Institute’s emphasis on Article I’s trade power. This would align with Biden rulings but risk political backlash, especially with Trump’s reported plan to attend arguments for pressure.
- Middle Ground: Limit tariffs to true emergencies (e.g., not chronic trade deficits) without fully invoking the doctrine.
Experts like Epps and Goldsmith warn inconsistency could erode the Court’s legitimacy, but the foreign policy carve-out provides an “off-ramp” to favor Trump without contradicting Biden precedents. A decision is expected by summer 2026, but tariffs remain in effect pending appeal.