Trump takes tariffs for the fight of the United States Supreme Court

Donald Trump's administration asked the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday to listen to an attempt to preserve its radical tariffs pursued under a 1977 law destined for emergencies, after a lower court invalidated most of the central taxes in the economic and commercial agenda of the Republican President.

The Department of Justice appealed a ruling of August 29 by a Federal Appeals Court that the President exceeded his authority to invoke the law known as the International Law of Emergency Economic Powers, which undermined Trump's great priority in his second term.

The tariffs currently remain in force, since the Court of Appeals stopped its order to give time to the Administration to seek a review of the Supreme Court.

The Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court to decide before September 10 if you would listen to the case. The Department of Justice also proposed an accelerated calendar to resolve the litigation, with oral arguments in the first week of November, only one month after the start of mandate 2025-2026 of the Court.

The lawyers for small businesses that challenge the rates do not oppose the government's request from a Supreme Court Hearing. One of the lawyers, Jeffrey Schwab from the Liberty Justice Center, said in a statement that they would prevail.

“We expect a quick resolution of this case for our customers,” said Schwab.

The encumbrances are part of a commercial war instigated by Trump since he returned to the presidency in January that has alienated commercial partners, greater volatility in financial markets and fed global economic uncertainty.

Trump has made tariffs a pillar of foreign policy of the United States, using them to exercise political pressure and renegotiate trade agreements and extract concessions from countries that export goods to the United States.

The litigation refers to the use of IEEPA by Trump to impose what Trump calls “reciprocal” tariffs to address commercial deficits in April, as well as separate tariffs announced in February as economic leverage in China, Canada and Mexico to curb the traffic of fentanil and illicit drugs in the United States in the United States.

IEEPA gives the President Power to deal with “an unusual and extraordinary threat” in the midst of a national emergency and historically had been used to impose sanctions on enemies or freeze their assets. Before Trump, the law had never been used to impose tariffs.

The Trump Department of Justice has argued that the law allows tariffs under emergency provisions that authorize a “regular” president or block them completely.

The decision of the Court of Appeals comes from two challenges, one brought by five small companies that import products, including an importer of New York wines and liquors and a sports fishing retailer based in Pennsylvania.

The other was filed by 12 US states.: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont, most of them governed by Democrats.

The Constitution grants the Congress, not the President, the authority to issue taxes and tariffs, and any delegation of that authority must be explicit and limited, according to the demands.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, agreed, ruling that the president's power to regulate imports under the law does not include the power to impose tariffs.

“It seems unlikely that Congress intended, by promulgating Ieepa, departing from its past practice and granting the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs,” said the Court of Appeals in his decision 7-4.

The Court of Appeals also said that the expansive vision of IEEPA of the Administration violates the doctrine of “main questions” of the Supreme Court, which requires executive actions of branch of great economic and political importance that Congress clearly authorizes.

The International Trade Court based in New York, which has jurisdiction over customs and commercial disputes, previously ruled against Trump's tariff policies on May 28.

Another court in Washington ruled that IEEPA does not authorize Trump's tariffs, and the government has also appealed that decision. At least eight demands have challenged Trump's tariff policies, including one presented by the state of California.

The appeal of the administration occurs as a legal struggle on the independence of the Federal Reserve also seems destined for the Supreme Court, establishing a possible legal confrontation over Trump's economic policy in the coming months.