More than 200 members of Congress, including one Republican, united in urging the Supreme Court to declare President Trump’s global emergency tariffs unconstitutional, highlighting a growing debate over executive authority in trade law.
More than 200 Democratic members of Congress, accompanied by one Republican lawmaker, have taken a unified stand urging the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate President Donald Trump’s extensive global emergency tariffs. In a bipartisan...
Continue Reading This Article
Enjoy this article as well as all of our content, including reports, news, tips and more.
By registering or signing into your SRM Today account, you agree to SRM Today's Terms of Use and consent to the processing of your personal information as described in our Privacy Policy.
amicus brief filed late last week, 207 House and Senate members contended that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not provision the president with the authority to impose tariffs unilaterally. They pressed the justices to affirm a lower court ruling that deemed these tariffs unconstitutional, asserting that the power to levy duties is constitutionally vested exclusively in Congress.
The brief delineates significant concerns about the sweeping nature of the tariffs, noting that IEEPA lacks typical legislative safeguards such as product or country-specific limitations, tariff caps, procedural transparency, public input, collaboration with Congress, or sunset provisions. The lawmakers emphasised that no previous president since the law’s enactment over fifty years ago had used IEEPA to enact tariffs.
Leading the bipartisan effort were Senators Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Ron Wyden of Oregon, who hold senior positions on the Senate Foreign Relations and Finance Committees respectively. Notably, Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska was the sole Republican to co-sign the appeal, reflecting her consistent stance advocating Congressional oversight on trade policy. Murkowski has been vocal in her call to restore legislative authority over tariffs, joining bipartisan efforts earlier this year with the introduction of the Trade Review Act of 2025, and delivering speeches emphasising the need for Congressional control.
The Supreme Court is poised to hear arguments next week on whether Trump’s emergency tariffs comply with constitutional constraints. This legal battle follows a key ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which upheld a lower court’s decision declaring the tariffs unlawful.
The tariffs themselves originated in early 2025, when President Trump, citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, imposed import taxes on China, Canada, and Mexico. The administration linked these measures to the illegal fentanyl trade entering the U.S., later expanding the emergency tariffs globally under the rationale of addressing trade deficits—situations where the U.S. imports more from a country than it exports to it. Current tariffs range from 10% to 50% on most imported goods, with the Treasury having collected nearly $195 billion in customs duties by the end of September 2025.
The imposition of these emergency tariffs has ignited legal opposition not only from lawmakers but also from various states and private sector entities. A coalition of states—including Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon—led by Democratic attorneys general, joined a lawsuit challenging the administration’s tariffs. Business plaintiffs represent a varied group, including a New York wine importer, a Utah plastics manufacturer, a Virginia children’s educational kit company, a Pennsylvania fishing gear producer, and a Vermont cycling apparel maker. The U.S. Court of International Trade had already ruled the tariffs illegal in May of this year.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield praised the bipartisan congressional brief supporting states’ legal challenges, reflecting broad institutional resistance to what critics describe as executive overreach. The Senate is also actively working through legislative measures aimed at terminating these tariffs on countries such as Canada and Brazil.
This issue has also generated political divides within states. For example, Alaska’s two senators have notably opposed each other in their approaches: Murkowski voted alongside Democrats and a minority of Republicans in favour of ending the tariffs against Canada, while Senator Dan Sullivan supported maintaining the emergency import taxes.
The debate encapsulates a broader constitutional question about the separation of powers concerning trade policy. Advocates like Murkowski have highlighted a historical shift over the past century where tariff-setting, initially a Congressional prerogative, has increasingly been delegated to the executive branch. Recent legislative efforts, speeches, and court battles aim to recalibrate this balance, reaffirming Congress’s constitutional role in regulating commerce with foreign nations against unilateral executive actions.
As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh this dispute, its decision will have far-reaching implications for U.S. trade policy, governmental authority, and the legal boundaries of emergency economic intervention.
Source: Noah Wire Services
