The Other Arguments in Trump’s Tariffs Case
When the Supreme Court gathers on Wednesday to hear oral arguments over the tariffs introduced by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), it will consider challenges brought by small businesses, a coalition of twelve states, and the federal government defending the policy. These tariffs were enacted earlier this year through a series of executive orders.
Alongside the core arguments, the justices will review forty-four amicus briefs—submissions from various organizations and individuals offering opinions on the case. These briefs come from members of Congress, trade specialists, legal scholars, think tanks affiliated with figures such as former Vice President Mike Pence and adviser Stephen Miller, as well as representatives from industries like watch manufacturing and wine production.
The range of arguments spans from historical interpretations of trade law to assessments of the tariffs’ economic impact. Notably, the briefs supporting the tariffs are far fewer than those opposing them. Many of the submissions question the scope of presidential authority granted by the IEEPA.
A brief representing 207 members of Congress, including Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, argues that the IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.
Summary
Numerous groups have challenged President Trump’s use of IEEPA to enact tariffs, arguing before the Supreme Court that such powers exceed presidential authority.