Concerns Over Presidential Power in Tariff Decisions
The Cato Institute has raised alarms about the federal government’s use of executive power related to tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. In a recent legal brief regarding the case of V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Cato argues that these tariffs—especially those on imports from countries like China, Mexico, and Canada—overstep the president’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
Cato believes that this move undermines the Constitution’s separation of powers and grants the executive branch too much control over trade matters that should be left to Congress. Brent Skorup, a legal expert at the Cato Institute, emphasized the importance of defining limits to presidential power. He noted, “The president shouldn’t be able to impose tariffs whenever he feels like it. There has to be a cap, but the administration has not defined one.”
The Cato Institute is urging the appeals court to uphold a lower court’s decision, which stated that the tariffs exceeded the president’s legal authority. Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled against the use of IEEPA in this context, saying that such laws do not permit tariffs as a broad solution for issues like drug trafficking or trade imbalances.
While the Trump administration argues that IEEPA equips the president to act decisively in times of national crisis, such as dealing with the fentanyl epidemic and trade vulnerabilities, critics worry that declaring emergencies to justify tariffs stretches the intended use of such powers.
Skorup acknowledges that Congress has a role in this situation, as vague laws have allowed presidents from both parties to interpret their powers broadly. He stated, “Congress must share some responsibility for writing these laws. The courts need to step in and set clear boundaries.”
Small businesses like V.O.S. Selections feel the impact firsthand. Skorup pointed out that the uncertainty caused by fluctuating tariffs complicates planning for import-dependent businesses. In particular, companies such as V.O.S. struggle when tariffs rise unexpectedly, leading to significant operational challenges.
If the courts side with the administration, it could represent a significant increase in presidential power over trade policy. Such a ruling would allow future presidents to act similarly without adequate checks and balances, potentially undermining the Constitution’s intended separation of powers.
A ruling from the appeals court is anticipated later this year. The ongoing debate raises vital questions about the balance of power within our government and the rights of businesses navigating this complex landscape.
