The U.S. Constitution is clear: Congress, not the President, holds the power to set tariffs and regulate foreign trade. These are fundamental legislative powers that help maintain the balance of government and protect individual freedoms. While Congress can delegate some authority to the President, it must provide clear guidelines—no branch can give away its core responsibilities.

When it comes to emergencies, the President does have significant tools at his disposal. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) allows the President to regulate international economic transactions, like imposing tariffs, but only during a declared national emergency and only to address an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security, foreign policy, or the economy. The President can’t use these powers for just any policy goal; the actions must directly address the specific threat cited in the emergency declaration.

To prevent abuse, there are important safeguards. The President must notify Congress when declaring a national emergency, and Congress can review and even terminate the emergency. Courts also play a critical role by reviewing whether the President’s actions stay within the limits of the law.

Court Halts Presidential Tariffs: Why the Constitution Still Matters

The Firefighter Analogy: When Emergency Powers Go Too Far

Imagine a firefighter with a high-pressure hose, meant to put out real fires. But what if that firefighter started spraying water everywhere—on gardens, sidewalks, even houses that weren’t burning—just because they could? That’s what happened when the President tried to use emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on imports from more than 180 countries. The court stepped in and said, “You can use the hose—but only for actual fires.”

Who Really Decides on Tariffs?

Our country’s founders gave Congress—not the President—the power to set tariffs and regulate trade with other nations. This keeps one person from having too much control over the economy and ensures decisions are made with checks and balances.

What Is IEEPA, and Why Did It Matter?

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) lets the President take action in a real emergency—like when there’s a serious threat to national security from outside the country. But the law is clear: these powers can only be used to directly address that specific threat, not for unrelated goals or as a general tool to pressure other countries.

The Court’s Unanimous Decision: A Lesson in Constitutional Guardrails

Three judges—appointed by Presidents Reagan, Obama, and Trump—looked at the case and agreed: the President’s tariffs went way beyond what the law allows. Here’s what they said:

• Judge (Reagan appointee): “IEEPA does not give the President a blank check to impose tariffs for any reason. The law requires a real, direct connection to a declared emergency.”
• Judge (Obama appointee): “The Constitution’s protections don’t vanish during emergencies—they are even more important.”
• Judge (Trump appointee): “Congress, not the President, has the exclusive power over trade. Emergency powers must be used carefully and within the law.”

The court’s written opinion put it simply: “The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority allocated to the President by IEEPA for regulating imports through tariffs. The Trafficking Tariffs are invalid as they do not address the threats outlined in those orders.”

The Major Questions Doctrine: Why “Big Issues” Require Clear Laws

Recent court decisions—like blocking President Biden’s student loan forgiveness and President Trump’s tariffs—share a common thread: the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD). This legal principle says that if a presidential action involves a “major question” with vast economic or political significance, Congress must explicitly authorize it. Courts won’t assume silent approval.

How It Worked in the Student Loan Case

In Biden v. Nebraska (2023), the Supreme Court rejected $430 billion in student debt cancellation. The Biden administration claimed authority under the HEROES Act, which allows “waiving or modifying” loan terms during emergencies. But the Court ruled that “waiving” $430 billion wasn’t a “modification”—it was a transformative policy requiring clear congressional approval. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote: “We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance.”

Parallels to the Tariffs Case

The U.S. Court of International Trade used similar logic to block Trump’s tariffs. While IEEPA lets the President “regulate importation” during emergencies, the court found that imposing 10% tariffs on 180+ countries wasn’t a targeted response to specific threats—it was an economy-wide policy with global trade implications. Without explicit congressional approval, such sweeping action violated the separation of powers.

What This Means for Presidential Power

Both cases highlight a judicial trend: courts will strike down executive actions that tackle “major questions” without clear statutory authority. This isn’t about partisan politics—it’s about ensuring Congress, not the President, makes transformative policy decisions. As Ilia Somin notes, the MQD acts as a “constitutional guardrail” against executive overreach, preserving the balance of power even during crises.

Why Ilia Somin Says This Case Matters

In his Atlantic analysis, constitutional scholar Ilia Somin calls this ruling “a landmark victory for the separation of powers.” He argues that unchecked emergency powers risk turning the presidency into a “quasi-monarchical office,” undermining the system of checks and balances. Somin highlights two critical takeaways:

1. Judicial Review Works: Courts can and should step in when the executive branch overreaches, even during emergencies. As Somin writes, “The judiciary is the last line of defense against presidential overreach.”
2. Congress Must Reclaim Its Role: Lawmakers have too often ceded power to the President. This case, Somin notes, is a “wake-up call for Congress to assert its constitutional authority over trade and emergencies.”

Why This Matters for Everyone

This isn’t just about trade or politics. It’s about making sure no one—no matter how powerful—can ignore the rules that keep our government balanced and fair. The court’s decision protects businesses, consumers, and the basic idea that laws—not individuals—should decide how our country is run.

The Constitution’s Blueprint for Freedom

When emergencies happen, it’s tempting to let leaders do whatever they think is necessary. But our system is designed to make sure power is always limited and shared. This case isn’t just about tariffs—it’s about preserving the architecture of liberty that the founders built. As Somin concludes, “The separation of powers isn’t a technicality. It’s the reason we’ve avoided dictatorship for 250 years.”

The court’s message is clear: emergencies don’t erase the Constitution. They test it. And in this test, the separation of powers prevailed.