When President Trump announced his sweeping tariffs on imports this year, he relied on a 1977 law passed by Congress.
That law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, allowed the president to regulate economic transactions during national emergencies.
The groups challenging Mr. Trump’s tariffs assert that the measures overstep the bounds of what is known as the “nondelegation doctrine,” the principle that Congress cannot cede — or delegate — its legislative powers to other branches of government.
The Supreme Court used the doctrine extensively in the 1930s to strike down legislation from the New Deal. But for decades, as power shifted over time to the executive branch, courts have not invoked the doctrine. It has gained traction again in recent years among conservative legal groups seeking to limit the power of administrative agencies.
So far, the current court has declined to embrace it. Last term, the justices rejected a challenge to the authority of the Federal Communications Commission to create a program to subsidize broadband and telecommunications access for low-income consumers, rural communities, schools and health care providers.
Challengers in that case argued that Congress had unconstitutionally delegated its power by giving the federal agency the power to set required fees for telecommunications carriers to pay into the program. In the case, Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research, the court ruled 6 to 3 in favor of upholding the F.C.C.’s power.
But the debate has resurfaced again in the tariffs case. In a brief to the court, the challengers asserted that “the fundamental character” of the tariffs are that they are taxes, and that the power to tax is clearly given to Congress in the Constitution. The groups argued that “historical practice confirms” that the 1977 law passed by Congress did “not delegate the power to tariff” and that, in the five decades since it was enacted, “no president until now” has ever used it to impose tariffs.
The Trump administration responded by quoting from a concurrence by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in the F.C.C. case in which he wrote that the nondelegation doctrine played “an even more limited role” in the spheres of national security and foreign policy. Justice Kavanaugh, a conservative, is often seen as a key vote on the court.
The administration argued that tariffs “have yielded significant foreign-policy successes and have prompted fruitful negotiations with many foreign partners.” It cited combating fentanyl trafficking and closing trade deficits as foreign policy goals related to tariffs.
Abbie VanSickle covers the United States Supreme Court for The Times. She is a lawyer and has an extensive background in investigative reporting.
The post What Is the Nondelegation Doctrine? appeared first on New York Times.
