Commenter “Bauxite” writes, concerning a court’s recent blocking of Trump’s tariffs:
A court “kneecapped” Trump’s power to impose tariffs because Trump never had that power to begin with.
It wasn’t that long ago, just a few years, that conservatives would still be rightly outraged when presidents acted beyond their powers and claimed to justify themselves with never-before-conceived interpretations of decades-old statutes. Good times.
Goodness knows there have been some screwy and abusive court decisions since January. This isn’t one of them.
Biden imposed tariffs by EO as well and extended some of Trump’s first-term ones: he kept Trump’s China tariffs, as well as later raising them. You can read more details here.
As far as the legality of tariffs by EO generally goes, see this:
A key question is whether a president has the authority to implement the types of across-the-board tariffs being discussed by Trump. The U.S. Constitution plainly grants the power to impose tariffs to Congress, not the president: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations” (Article 1, Section 8). However, Congress has delegated extensive authorities that allow the president to impose tariffs if certain statutory conditions are met.
While some analysts have tried to reassure investors and markets by asserting that Trump would lack the legal authority to implement his tariffs plans, this reflects an overly optimistic view of the limits of presidential tariff authority. As of today, there are multiple legal authorities that Trump could rely on to justify the imposition of increased tariffs, including many that Trump already availed himself of during his presidency. These include Sections 232 and 301, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Section 122 Balance-of-Payments Authority, and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. While Section 232 requires an investigation by the Department of Commerce and Section 301 requires an investigation and determination by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), these procedural niceties could be accomplished in relatively short order by cabinet officials, particularly since undue delay could put them at risk of getting fired. Regardless, any investigation or public comment period would allow anticipation to build, enhancing Trump’s negotiating leverage, which is likely one of the main points of the exercise.
That was published by CSIS, which bills itself as bipartisan but is currently headed by Thomas Pritzker. The article describes each law and how it could be used to justify Trump’s tariffs; it was written shortly prior to Trump’s 2024 election.
But some the tariffs in Trump’s second are somewhat different and were imposed under the National Emergencies Act. Wiki summarizes Trump’s second-term tariffs this way:
In his second term, Trump added tariffs to steel, aluminum, and auto imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (TEA), which allows the President to modify imports if the Secretary of Commerce conducts an investigation, holds public hearings, and determines that the imports threaten national security. Trump directed the USTR to initiate similar investigations to impose tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Trump also invoked unprecedented powers under the National Emergencies Act (NEA) and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by declaring multiple “national emergencies” related to border security, energy, and trade deficits. Declaring these emergencies allowed Trump to enact tariffs quickly without following the complex procedures required by TEA or other trade statutes. While the IEEPA had been used for sanctions, it had never before been used for tariffs. …The New York Times reported that “many economists and legal experts believe that the idea of an emergency has been concocted to justify Mr. Trump’s desire to impose sweeping import duties without regard to congressional approval or international trade rules.”
Congress didn’t act against those tariffs:
To terminate a national emergency under the NEA, a member of Congress may file a privileged resolution requiring their chamber to vote on the topic within 15 days. Democratic representatives introduced resolutions to end several of Trump’s national emergencies justifying tariffs, but these efforts were blocked by the Republican congressional majority. JD Vance cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate to uphold the emergency underpinning the “Liberation Day” tariffs.
Trump’s opposition was ready with many cases challenging his tariff imposition under this particular act – although of course they’d be on the other side if it was Biden trying to impose them:
In May 2025, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) held hearings for V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump and Oregon v. Trump. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump was heard before the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia. On May 28, a three-judge panel of the court unanimously ruled in favor of a permanent injunction preventing Trump’s 30% China tariffs, 25% Mexico and Canada tariffs, and the 10% universal tariff on most imported U.S. goods. They concurred with the plaintiffs in finding that IEEPA “does not authorize any of the worldwide, retaliatory, or trafficking tariff orders.”
The Trump administration will appeal, of course, and the case is likely to go to SCOTUS. I have no idea what will happen there, but here’s an article at Legal Insurrection laying out some of the legal complexities. It’s not a slam dunk either way, IMHO.
In other words, statutes are open to interpretation, and most court decisions these days seem to be mostly political.
NOTE: Here’s Jonathan Turley on the subject. As usual, well worth reading, and I basically agree with him that Congress needs to act.
