The Trump administration imposed sweeping tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law the White House favored for its speed and flexibility. By declaring a national emergency, the president was able to issue immediate trade orders and bypass the lengthy approval processes normally required.
Trump first invoked the law in February to impose tariffs on goods from China, Mexico, and Canada, citing drug trafficking from those nations as a national emergency. He used it again in April, placing levies ranging from 10% to 50% on imports from nearly every country, arguing that the U.S. trade deficit posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat” to national security.
Trade lawyer Ted Murphy of Sidley Austin said this use of the IEEPA gave businesses little time to prepare. “This is not just about the money,” he explained. “The president has announced tariffs on Sunday that go into effect on Wednesday — without advance notice, without any real process. That’s the bigger concern for businesses — whether this kind of decision-making will continue in the future.”
As the U.S. Supreme Court now considers the legality of these tariffs, there is no clear indication of how the justices will rule. In recent years, the Court has struck down major executive policies, such as Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, for exceeding presidential authority. However, with six of the nine justices appointed by Republican presidents — including three by Trump — the Court has also shown deference to executive powers in matters of national security.
“I think arguments could take the Court in several directions,” said Greta Peisch, a former trade lawyer in the Biden administration. Meanwhile, Adam White, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, predicted the Court might strike down the tariffs but avoid defining what qualifies as a “national emergency.”
The pending decision has already affected international trade relations. The European Union, for instance, has delayed ratifying a new trade agreement with the U.S. until the Court’s ruling is announced. “They’re not going to act on this until they see the outcome,” noted John Clarke, former director for international trade at the European Commission.
In Switzerland, chocolatier Daniel Bloch, whose company Chocolats Camille Bloch exports kosher chocolates to the U.S., said the 39% tariff has slashed profits and is unsustainable. “We’re absorbing a third of the cost to keep prices stable, but it’s not viable in the long run,” he said.
Bloch expressed hope that the Supreme Court would strike down the tariffs altogether. “If the court were to make the tariffs go away, of course we’d see that as a positive sign,” he said. “But we don’t trust that it will bring the full solution.”
