Earlier this year, President Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to slap broad tariffs on imports from multiple countries. His reasoning was tied to what he declared as “emergencies”: drug trafficking, illegal immigration, and foreign nations playing unfair with U.S. trade. The logic was simple: if other countries were exploiting loopholes or stacking the deck, America should hit back with tariffs.

Not everyone cheered. A group of businesses—ranging from toy makers like Learning Resources and hand2mind, to wine importers such as V.O.S. Selections—cried foul. Their argument was that tariffs are taxes, and taxes aren’t something a president can just conjure up under emergency powers. Congress, after all, is supposed to control the taxing and tariff levers, not the executive branch.

The lower courts agreed. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade blocked Trump’s tariffs, saying he had overstepped his authority under IEEPA. The Federal Circuit affirmed that ruling in late August but pressed the pause button on enforcement to give the administration time to appeal. And appeal they did. The Supreme Court has now stepped in and agreed to hear the case this fall, scheduling oral arguments for November 5, 2025.

So, here’s the big picture: lower courts have ruled against President Trump’s emergency tariff powers, but the final word now lies with the Supremes. And the stakes? Enormous. This case will not only decide whether Trump’s tariffs survive but will also shape how much latitude any president has in wielding “emergency powers” over the economy. In other words: this is about a lot more than taxes on imported wine and educational toys; it’s about the balance of power in our republic.

The Case for Using IEEPA to Authorize Tariffs

Now, to be fair, the administration isn’t walking into court empty-handed. President Trump’s team, along with some sympathetic legal scholars, argue that IEEPA is written broadly enough to cover his tariff moves. After all, the statute authorizes the president to “regulate” economic activity with foreign nations in times of “unusual and extraordinary threat.” That word “regulate” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. The administration contends that regulating commerce doesn’t just mean freezing assets or blocking bank transactions; it also reasonably includes tariffs, duties, or whatever economic levers are necessary to confront a national emergency.

The logic goes deeper than wordplay. Emergencies, by their very nature, are unpredictable. Congress, the administration argues, cannot anticipate every scenario. That’s why it delegated broad powers under IEEPA, trusting the president to move quickly when circumstances demand. Waiting for Congress to hash out new legislation every time an international crisis hits would leave America hamstrung. When drugs pour across the border, or foreign nations manipulate trade to gut American industries, the president needs the flexibility to respond decisively, and tariffs are one of the strongest tools in the toolbox.

Supporters of Trump’s approach also point to history. Previous presidents have used IEEPA and its predecessor, the Trading with the Enemy Act, to implement sweeping sanctions and controls. While those actions didn’t look exactly like Trump’s broad-based tariff regime, they show a long tradition of using “emergency economic powers” in expansive ways. If past presidents could restrict trade, freeze assets, and block entire categories of imports, why should tariffs be off the table?

Another argument plays the national security card. Tariffs don’t just impact trade; they have ripple effects on alliances, military readiness, and the nation’s overall resilience. Courts traditionally give the president wide discretion in matters touching foreign policy and national defense. Seen through that lens, tariffs under IEEPA aren’t some rogue tax scheme but a legitimate expression of presidential authority in safeguarding national security.

And then there’s the practical argument. The administration warns that if the courts shut this door, future presidents will be left powerless to act when foreign nations exploit the U.S. economy. Congress is notoriously slow, and international trade disputes don’t wait around for committee hearings. To keep America competitive, the executive must retain the ability to act swiftly, and that includes tariff authority.

The Case Against Using IEEPA to Authorize Tariffs

But let’s flip the script, because the critics—and the lower courts—have plenty of ammunition of their own. For starters, the text of IEEPA simply doesn’t mention tariffs. That silence is deafening. Congress knows how to grant tariff authority when it wants to, and it has done so in other trade statutes. The fact that IEEPA never speaks of duties or taxes suggests strongly that Congress didn’t intend it to be used that way.

There’s also a crucial distinction between “regulating” commerce and “taxing” commerce. Tariffs are, at their core, a form of taxation. And Article I of the Constitution places the taxing power squarely in the hands of Congress, not the president. To say that IEEPA allows tariffs is to let the executive sneak into Congress’s house and rearrange the furniture without permission.

The legislative history reinforces this point. Nowhere in the record does Congress indicate that IEEPA was meant to be a blank check for the president to set trade policy. The statute was designed primarily for freezing assets, imposing sanctions, and blocking suspicious transactions, not for writing sweeping new tax rules on imports.

And here’s where the constitutional guardrails come in. Even if you grant that Congress can delegate some economic powers, handing over broad taxing authority with no clear limits raises serious nondelegation concerns. The Founders were careful about separating powers for a reason. If Congress cedes too much of its role to the executive, we drift dangerously toward a system where presidents rule by decree instead of within constitutional boundaries.

Modern judicial doctrines bolster the case against Trump’s interpretation. The “major questions doctrine” insists that when an agency or executive action carries vast economic or political significance, courts should demand a clear statement from Congress. Sweeping tariffs that affect global trade and touch every American consumer definitely qualify as “major.” Yet Congress never gave that clear authorization in IEEPA.

Critics also point out the slipperiness of Trump’s “emergency” rationale. Trade deficits and unfair foreign practices are real problems, but are they “unusual and extraordinary threats” in the sense IEEPA was designed to address? That law was crafted for sudden, urgent crises, say, terrorism funding or sanctions against hostile regimes. If every long-term policy challenge can be rebranded as an emergency, then “emergency powers” become regular governing powers, and that’s a dangerous road.

Finally, there’s the practical fallout. Tariffs may punish foreign competitors, but they also increase costs for American families and small businesses. Companies that already imported goods under the tariff regime now face uncertainty about refunds, liabilities, and long-term planning. Stability in trade policy matters, and if the president can toggle tariffs on and off by declaring and ending emergencies, businesses will be stuck in perpetual limbo.

All of this leads to the conclusion that IEEPA simply wasn’t designed to support the kind of sweeping tariff program Trump is pursuing. The courts saw that, and the Supreme Court will now decide whether to agree.

The Constitution Still Has the Last Word

I have a deep respect both for strong executive leadership and for constitutional guardrails. And on this one, I have to side with the critics. IEEPA should not be read as a license for presidents to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs.

The Constitution assigns Congress the power of the purse and the authority over commerce. That’s a cornerstone of limited government. Stretching “regulate” to include “tax” may be clever lawyering, but it runs roughshod over both the text of the statute and the spirit of our constitutional order. If this kind of interpretation is allowed, then the door is wide open for future presidents to impose all sorts of taxes and trade rules under the guise of emergencies, whether those emergencies are economic, environmental, or ideological.

President Trump isn’t wrong to want tougher tools to defend American workers and businesses against unfair foreign practices. His instincts on trade protection resonate with many ordinary Americans who’ve seen factories shuttered and jobs shipped overseas. But instincts, no matter how valid, still need to be channeled through the proper constitutional process. If broad reciprocal tariffs are what America needs, then Congress should step up and pass legislation to authorize them clearly, with checks, balances, and oversight baked in.

The emergency route may look faster, but it’s also messier and more dangerous in the long run. Emergencies should be treated as exceptions, not as loopholes to rewrite trade law. For that reason, I believe the Supreme Court should rein in this particular use of IEEPA. In doing so, they wouldn’t just be checking President Trump, they’d be reinforcing the balance of power that protects us all, no matter who sits in the Oval Office.