The Legal Debate on Trump’s Tariffs in the US

By Angelica Bidlack

‘Is that even legal?’ That’s a question which has surely been asked by many in relation to Trump’s shocking tariff policies for the past few months— especially the recent threat of another 100% tariff on China. A US appeals court decided in August ‘No’; Trump’s imposition of tariffs on almost all trade partners is not legal. The Trump administration however has defended that ‘yes’, their tariffs are legal, citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) 1977 as grounds. This blog post breaks down the legal debate around Trump’s tariff charges, and dives into the details of the IEEPA.

On the 2 April 2025, Trump introduced what he called the “Liberation Day” tariffs: a baseline 10% tariff on almost all countries importing goods into the US. In the same month, two lawsuits were filed by small businesses and a coalition of US states disputing their legality. The US appeal court, a federal judiciary ranked just below the Supreme Court, took on the lawsuit and declared Trump’s tariffs to be illegal. The debate on the legality of the tariffs revolves around the 1977 IEEPA, which states that the President may take authority to make economic decisions which would usually be beyond their power to do if it is to protect the US in international emergency situations. The IEEPA does not explicitly limit which economic actions it confers on the President, but does require an explanation from the President as to why their action is of high importance in regard to foreign relations. In other words, the only condition that must be satisfied in order to take an action under the IEEPA is a presidential declaration of national emergency from a foreign threat. Historically, the act has been used for economic sanctions, but no President before Trump has used the IEEPA to defend the use of tariffs.

A President may hypothetically impose tariffs in the name of the IEEPA, though, for Trump’s case, courts do not see the tariffs to be of such an importance as would be required in the IEEPA. The US appeals court had a 7-4 ruling that Trump was going beyond what he has the authority to do in his role as President when implementing his tariffs. They considered that the IEEPA does not mention the use of tariffs and that Trump is using the IEEPA in the wrong context. They argue that tariffs are usually decided to be imposed by Congress, not the President. Notably, the US appeals court issuing this decision only had three out of eleven judges appointed by Republicans.

On the other hand, the Trump administration argues that there is a national emergency on trade, as the US is at risk of falling into a trade imbalance which would in turn threaten national security. According to Trump, prohibiting these tariffs would make the US “financially weak” and “destroy” the country. Trump warned America could fall into being a third world country.

While the US appeals court was not persuaded by these reasons to impose tariffs in the name of a national emergency, they have paused the consequences of their ruling and gave the administration time by the14 October to pass the case on to the Supreme Court for review. A few days after the US appeals court decision on the 29 August, the case was passed on to the Supreme Court. On the 5 November, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether the “Liberation Day” tariffs are legal. Trump says he might attend the debate on the legality of the tariffs. If the Supreme Court agrees with the US appeals court and claims the tariffs are illegal, it could potentially permit companies and businesses affected by the tariffs to demand compensation from the US government for the money lost as a result of tariffs.

The crux of the debate on the legality of Trump’s tariffs lies in the question of whether the reason to impose such tariffs is an emergency for national security or not based on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The future of this case will be cemented after the debate in the Supreme Court taking place on the 5 November. It is not just the tariffs that are at stake in this debate. The debate also addresses the extent of presidential authority and power, and the balance between Congress and the White House. If the Supreme Court agrees with the Trump administration, it will open a whole set of questions about the balance of power in the US. However, if the Supreme Court states Trump’s tariffs are illegal, the country will face harsh economic impacts. Much is at stake, and the country is watching closely on the balls of their feet.

Edited by Artyom Timofeev

Image source: