The US government has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a federal appeal court ruling that declared US President Donald Trump’s use of emergency executive powers to impose tariffs unlawful. The move sets up a high-stakes legal showdown over the limits of presidential authority in trade policy.
In its appeal filed on Wednesday, the Trump administration told the high court that the case “addresses the validity” of the government’s “most significant economic and foreign-policy initiative”.
“The stakes in this case could not be higher,” the petition said, noting that Trump and his cabinet official had “determined that the tariffs are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity”.
It added that “the denial of tariff authority would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defences and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe”.
In a ruling on August 30, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a 7-4 decision, declared that Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on nearly all US trading partners, including “reciprocal” tariffs and fentanyl-related levies on Canada, Mexico and China, exceeded his authority.
The court argued that the power to impose tariffs lies primarily with Congress, as outlined in the US Constitution, and that the IEEPA does not explicitly grant the president the authority to impose such broad trade measures.
The tariffs have been justified by the administration as necessary to address national emergencies, including trade deficits and fentanyl trafficking. The appeal court delayed enforcement of its ruling until October 14.
The administration’s petition on Wednesday called the appeal court decision “erroneous”, arguing that it “casts a pall of uncertainty upon ongoing foreign negotiations” and jeopardises “both already-negotiated framework deals and ongoing negotiations”.
“Due to IEEPA tariffs, six major trading partners and the 27-nation European Union have already entered into framework deals with the United States, accepting tariff arrangements heavily recalibrated in America’s favour,” the government told the Supreme Court.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, in a declaration attached to the filing, said the appeal court ruling “gravely undermines the president’s ability to conduct real-world diplomacy and his ability to protect the national security and economy of the United States”.
Trump has argued that, as president, he holds “the right to do it” given what he has characterised as an “economic emergency”, warning that a higher court ruling against the tariffs would carry heavy costs for the country.
“If we don’t win that decision, you’ll see a reverberation, like maybe you’ve never seen before. That’s how bad it will be,” he said in an interview on Tuesday, calling for an expedited ruling.
The Supreme Court, with its 6 to 3 conservative majority, including three justices appointed by Trump, will decide whether to take up the case. If accepted, oral arguments could be scheduled for later in the year, with a ruling likely by early next year.
“Both federal courts that considered the issue agreed that IEEPA does not give the president unchecked tariff authority,” said Jeffrey Schwab of the Liberty Justice Centre, the lead law firm for main plaintiff VOS Selections, a family-owned American wine business.
He added that the “unlawful” tariffs were “inflicting serious harm on small businesses and jeopardising their survival. We hope for a prompt resolution of this case for our clients.”
An outcome in the case could either uphold the appeal court’s decision, limiting the president’s ability to impose tariffs unilaterally, or reverse it, affirming broader executive authority.
If the Supreme Court does not intervene, the lower court’s judgment will hold.
In May, a three-judge panel of the New York-based US Court of International Trade also ruled that the US leader overstepped his authority in using emergency powers to impose hefty levies on all trading partners. - SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST
