The Trump administration on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to move swiftly to allow the president to continue imposing sprawling tariffs on nations around the world, setting up a major test of his trade policies and his expansion of executive power.
A federal appeals court late last month invalidated President Trump’s most punishing global tariffs, finding that he had exceeded his authority by invoking a 1970s-era emergency power to tax imports from major trading partners. The appeals court paused its ruling, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect at least until Oct. 14 so Mr. Trump could file with the Supreme Court.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the justices to decide by Sept. 10 whether to review the case and to schedule oral argument for the first week of November — just one month after the court’s new term begins. If the justices accept the case, it would be the first to reach the court in Mr. Trump’s second term that directly tests the legality of one of the administration’s signature initiatives rather than addressing the president’s actions on a temporary emergency basis.
Since taking office, Mr. Trump has relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 as a central part of his efforts to force companies to invest in the United States.
Without the emergency powers, the president and his advisers have warned of major damage to the nation’s economy, military power and diplomatic relations, particularly if the government were forced to pay back some of the billions of dollars it has already collected in tariffs.
The lower court’s “erroneous decision has disrupted highly impactful, sensitive, ongoing diplomatic trade negotiations, and cast a pall of legal uncertainty over the president’s efforts to protect our country by preventing an unprecedented economic and foreign-policy crisis,” the solicitor general told the justices in his request for highly expedited review. The petition had not yet been publicly docketed on the court’s website late Wednesday, but its filing was confirmed by both sides in the litigation.
Other presidents have invoked the emergency statute, typically to issue sanctions, but Mr. Trump is the first to try to use the emergency powers to impose broad levies of 10 to 50 percent on trading partners.
In April, five small businesses and a dozen states sued, saying Mr. Trump’s actions were unlawful.
Lawyers for the coalition expressed confidence in their legal arguments late Wednesday.
“These unlawful tariffs are inflicting serious harm on small businesses and jeopardizing their survival. We hope for a prompt resolution of this case for our clients,” Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center said in a statement.
A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington last week upheld a lower court decision invalidating the tariffs and finding the president’s actions were not authorized by the emergency statute.
In its 7-to-4 ruling, the appeals court said the tariffs were a core constitutional power given to Congress and noted that the statute at issue did not include the word “tariffs” nor synonyms such as “tax” or “duty.”
“The power of the purse (including the power to tax) belongs to Congress,” the appeals court said in an unsigned opinion.
Mr. Trump used the emergency law early last month to tax imports from 90 countries. He previously invoked it to impose tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico in response to what he said were those countries’ roles in the fentanyl trade.
The administration’s filing on Wednesday emphasized the importance of the tariffs to the president’s agenda and a need for the justices to act urgently.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers characterized the tariffs as the administration’s “most significant economic and foreign-policy initiative,” which the president has “determined are necessary to rectify America’s country-killing trade deficits and to stem the flood of fentanyl across our borders.”
A coalition of prominent conservative and libertarian lawyers, scholars and former officials filed a brief in June opposing Mr. Trump’s tariffs and emphasizing that the powers to tax must remain with Congress.
Under the act at issue in the case, the president can take certain steps in response to a declared emergency arising from an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to “the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.” The law says that includes the power to regulate imports, language the Trump administration says means tariffs.
But the appeals court said the statute’s grant of power to the president to regulate imports did not authorize the particular tariffs imposed by Mr. Trump’s executive orders.
The majority did not address whether the president’s actions should have been taken as a matter of policy or whether the law ever permits a president to unilaterally impose tariffs.
In dissent, four judges nominated by presidents of both parties said the challengers had failed to show that the tariffs are not among the tools Congress permitted when it passed the 1977 law.
The statute “embodies an eyes-open congressional grant of broad emergency authority in this foreign-affairs realm, which unsurprisingly extends beyond authorities available under nonemergency laws,” wrote Judge Richard G. Taranto, a nominee of President Barack Obama, who was joined by three other judges.
Adam Liptak and Tony Romm contributed to this report.
The post Trump Asks Supreme Court to Allow His Sweeping Tariffs appeared first on New York Times.
