Big news from the Federal Circuit! A major ruling just struck down former President Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs, significantly curtailing executive power. This decision challenges decades of interpretation and could reshape how future presidents wield authority. Will the Supreme Court weigh in on this unprecedented legal battle?
A significant legal challenge to presidential authority culminated today as the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit delivered a landmark ruling against former President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs. This decisive judgment, which affirms a previous trial court decision, represents a critical examination of the scope of executive power and its limits under existing statutes. The case, brought by five small US businesses, underscores a persistent legal debate over the boundaries of presidential actions, particularly concerning economic policy and international trade.
In a 7-4 en banc decision, the Federal Circuit upheld the Court of International Trade’s ruling, concluding that the challenged tariffs were not authorized by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This majority opinion sends a clear message about the interpretation of presidential authority, specifically remanding the issue of the injunction’s breadth back to the trial court. The legal proceedings highlight the judiciary’s role in scrutinizing executive branch actions, even as the government reserves the right to petition the Supreme Court for review.
Central to the majority’s conclusion was the assertion that IEEPA does not grant the president virtually unlimited tariff authority. The court invoked the major questions doctrine, a principle that requires clear congressional authorization for executive agencies to decide issues of vast economic and political significance. This application of the doctrine suggests a judicial pushback against broad interpretations of delegated powers, emphasizing that such significant policy shifts require explicit legislative backing.
The per curiam majority decision explicitly stated that Congress has historically provided specific limitations and procedural guidelines when delegating tariffs power. It found it “unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs.” The absence of explicit mentions of tariffs within IEEPA and the lack of clear procedural safeguards were key factors in the court’s reasoning, reinforcing the constitutional prerogative of Congress in taxation matters.
Historical precedent further strengthened the court’s stance. For nearly five decades since IEEPA’s promulgation, past presidents have frequently utilized its provisions, but never to impose tariffs of such magnitude on imports. Typically, IEEPA has been invoked to restrict financial transactions with specific entities or countries posing a national threat, illustrating a stark difference from the Donald Trump administration’s application of the statute. This lack of historical assertion underscored the “unheralded” and “transformative” nature of the tariffs, triggering the major questions doctrine concerns.
Adding further weight to the critique of unchecked executive power, a concurring opinion by Judge Cunningham, joined by four judges, argued that IEEPA categorically prohibits any presidential imposition of tariffs. This opinion also delved into the nondelegation doctrine, contending that the sweeping delegation of tariff authority claimed by the president would be unconstitutional. Citing recent Supreme Court rulings, the concurring judges emphasized the necessity for Congress to provide intelligible principles and clear boundaries when delegating legislative power, especially concerning matters affecting the entire national economy.
Despite the strong rejection of the tariffs, the Federal Circuit did vacate the trial court’s universal injunction, directing the lower court to reconsider its scope in light of the Supreme Court’s recent restrictions on such broad injunctions in CASA. This nuance indicates a judicial balance between limiting executive overreach and ensuring injunctions are appropriately tailored. The legal teams involved are now preparing arguments for a broad injunction, even within these new parameters, reflecting the ongoing complexities of administrative law.
For the moment, the Federal Circuit has stayed its ruling until October 14, granting the government an opportunity to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. The ultimate resolution of this case could profoundly impact the future exercise of emergency powers and reshape the relationship between the executive and legislative branches concerning economic policy. All eyes will now turn to the nation’s highest court to see whether the Trump tariffs legal battle will continue its ascent.
