Add Row 
Add 
Understanding the Power to Impose Tariffs in the US
The upcoming US Supreme Court hearing on November 5 marks a crucial moment in determining whether the President possesses the authority to levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). If the Supreme Court finds the President's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs unconstitutional, many tariffs established during the Trump administration could be deemed illegal. This decision would bring temporary relief to both consumers and businesses facing higher prices due to existing tariffs.
Current Tariffs and Broader Implications
As of 2025, tariffs imposed through various mechanisms like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act remain significant. Under this Act, the President can impose tariffs or quotas on imports that threaten national security. Currently, the US maintains a 50% tariff on steel and aluminum products, while imposing a variety of tariffs on automobiles and parts, as well as additional products like copper.
Interestingly, the President has broad discretion to modify or add new tariffs at any time, potentially expanding the scope of existing tariffs even further if the Supreme Court decision restricts the use of IEEPA. With investigations into various imports, including timber, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors currently open, the environment for future tariffs continues to evolve.
Judicial Overview and Legislative Balance
The Supreme Court's ruling could redefine the balance of trade powers between the President and Congress. Currently, while the President can act unilaterally, many argue that Congress should have a more significant role in levying tariffs to ensure that measures are not excessively punitive or politically motivated. Moreover, congressional oversight would help clarify the circumstances under which tariffs can be justified as necessary for national security.
The National Security Argument
At the heart of the matter is the debate over what constitutes a national security threat. The President's ability to invoke Section 232 relies heavily on this subjective definition, leading to protests from various sectors affected by sudden tariff implementations. For instance, industries relying on aluminum for production have faced increased costs, which can lead to higher prices for consumers. Consequently, defining and regulating national security threats within trade practices is a topic that requires legislative clarification.
As the Supreme Court prepares to announce its decision, businesses and consumers are left in an uncertain state. If the ruling is unfavorable to the IEEPA tariffs, tariffs imposed through Section 232 will remain, but the administration may seek alternative means to enforce financial barriers on imports. This tension illustrates the complex interplay between trade policy and national security, highlighting the importance of clear legal frameworks governing tariffs.
Write A Comment