The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit seemed skeptical of the Trump administration’s arguments today on Trump’s use of emergency authorities to slap tariffs on goods from countries around the world.
The administration argued that imposing the tariffs is well within the president’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. But almost right away, the argument got pushback from several judges.
Judge Jimmie V. Reyna noted that the law “doesn’t even mention the word ‘tariffs’ anywhere.” Other judges went on to question the claim of Trump’s expansive authority under the law.
As Brett Shumate, the assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Civil Division, struggled to answer some of the questions during his 45 minutes of oral arguments, some of the judges exchanged glances.
Neal Katyal, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, argued that there is nothing in the law that would allow the president to regulate taxes.
Two judges asked Katyal follow-up questions about laws and legal precedents that would possibly grant the president the authority to regulate tariffs.
“So, regulation doesn’t necessarily exclude tariffs. I gather your point is that there has to be something explicit in the statute that says ‘regulate’ in this context means ‘tariffs’?” one of the judges asked. Katyal argued that there were cases in which the power to tax included power to regulate but that “there are no reverse cases that say the power to regulate includes the power to tax.”
The judge went on to argue that tariffs can have a “dual purpose.”
Oregon Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman, was representing the states in the case, also spoke about the “unusual and extraordinary threat,” arguing that there was no threat for Trump to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The court is expected to decide in the coming weeks.