IEEPA Was Meant for Emergencies — Not Autocracy

I write to urge this Court to strike down President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a law written to confront genuine emergencies, not to hand presidents a blank check over U.S. trade policy. On April 2, Trump unilaterally levied massive tariffs against scores of countries—including our closest allies and even nations posing no conceivable threat—without any congressional approval. He justified this move by declaring national emergencies over “trade deficits” and “fentanyl,” neither of which meets any plausible standard for invoking IEEPA. The U.S. Court of International Trade and the appellate court have both ruled these tariffs illegal, and now the final word lies with you. The Constitution is unambiguous: the power to tax and raise revenue rests solely with Congress. Tariffs are taxes in every meaningful sense, and the president cannot impose them by decree. To uphold these tariffs would not only gut the separation of powers—it would effectively allow any president to bypass Congress by declaring a perpetual “emergency.” During oral arguments, several members of this Court recognized that contradiction. Justice Sotomayor reminded the Solicitor General that emergencies do not erase the major questions doctrine—especially when the executive asserts “vast economic and political significance.” Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch both pressed whether Congress could truly have intended to abdicate its constitutional role to regulate foreign commerce or raise revenue “as the president sees fit.” Even Justice Barrett questioned the absurd breadth of the claim: “Spain? France?” Beyond constitutional limits, these tariffs are economically destructive. They have violated international trade agreements, disrupted supply chains, and cost American consumers and businesses billions. Trump’s own statements—boasting about the “enormous revenue” from the tariffs—directly contradict his administration’s legal argument that they were “not revenue-raising.” It is impossible to reconcile those two claims in good faith. Prediction markets and policy experts alike viewed the government’s defense before this Court as a disaster. And rightly so: there is no economic emergency here—only political opportunism disguised as crisis management. As Justice Kagan noted, “It turns out we’re in emergencies all the time.” The Court must not allow “permanent emergencies” to become the new normal. However this Court frames its decision—whether through the major questions doctrine, the nondelegation principle, or a straightforward reading of IEEPA’s limits—the imperative is clear: the president cannot unilaterally tax the world. Congress alone has that authority. For the preservation of constitutional order, for economic sanity, and for the credibility of this Court as a guardian of limits on executive power, I urge you to uphold the lower courts and rule that Trump’s IEEPA tariffs are unlawful.

First sent on November 7 by Coleman