A Federal Circuit ruling says President Trump lacked authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose emergency tariffs. Legal scholars debate whether IEEPA’s phrase 'regulate importation' includes tariffs and how the Supreme Court will read congressional intent. If upheld, the decision would confine unilateral tariff moves to clear statutory grants.
— By redefining the boundary of executive power over trade, the case could shift tariff policy back toward Congress and reshape how presidents wield economic tools in geopolitical disputes.
James R. Rogers
2025.10.07
92% relevant
The article explains that both the CIT and the Federal Circuit held the president lacked statutory authority under IEEPA to impose the 'Liberation Day' tariffs, and that Congress could re‑authorize them with an intelligible principle—squarely aligning with the idea that courts are re‑asserting congressional control over tariff power.
Brent Skorup
2025.10.06
92% relevant
The article centers on Trump’s IEEPA‑based tariffs and notes that the Federal Circuit ruled the move unlawful, with SCOTUS now poised to decide—precisely the scenario described in the idea that would shift tariff power back toward Congress.
Robert Tracinski
2025.09.24
70% relevant
The article argues Trump has centralized economic power through emergency and national‑security tariff delegations; the existing idea spotlights a Federal Circuit move to confine unilateral tariff authority. Both address re‑balancing who sets tariff policy—president vs Congress/courts.
Nate Silver
2025.09.22
57% relevant
The article urges tying a funding bill to the Trade Review Act so Congress reasserts its constitutional tariff role—parallel to the broader theme that unilateral presidential tariff powers should be curtailed by other branches.
Oren Cass
2025.09.03
100% relevant
The podcast centers on last Friday’s Federal Circuit decision and contrasting analyses by Chad Squitieri and Peter Harrell about IEEPA’s scope.