OPINION — The U.S. Supreme Court decision on tariffs was disappointing in this respect: It vividly illustrated the difficulty, bordering on futility, of curbing through the courts Donald Trump’s abuses of power.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president a range of options to deal with an “unusual and extraordinary threat” emanating from a foreign country. Trump promulgated two sets of tariffs under the act. The first was imposed on Mexico, Canada and China based upon the “threat” of fentanyl trafficking. The second was imposed on virtually every country in the world based on our country’s trade deficit. In the second set, Trump claimed that, under the IEEPA, he could impose a tariff of any size on any country, and change it at any time.
An argument could be made that fentanyl constituted an “unusual and extraordinary threat” emanating from a foreign country. No such argument can be made about the trade deficits. They are not “unusual,” nor “extraordinary,” nor a “threat.” In passing the IEEPA, Congress had no intent to give the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs of any amount on any country, and change them at his whim, to address trade deficits. There are other specific statutes conferring on the president the authority, subject to procedural and other constraints, to deal with trade deficits.
