Learning Resources v. Trump

Week 7 — Taxing and Spending Power

Facts

  • Shortly after taking office, Trump sought to address two foreign threats:
    • The influx of illegal drugs from Canada, Mexico, and China.
    • The large and persistent trade deficits.
  • IEEPA gives the President economic tools to address significant foreign threats.
  • Trump declared a national emergency as to both the drug trafficking and the trade deficits, which he deemed "unusual and extraordinary threats."
    • Given these, he imposed unilateral and wide reaching tariffs.

Issue

Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose tariffs.

Rule

  • 50 U.S.C. § 1701(a).
  • U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 1.
  • International Emergency Economic Powers Act
    • 50 U.S.C. §1701(a).
  • U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 1.

Holding

No, the IEEPA does not give the President the authority to impose tariffs by his own authority and orders.

Reasoning

  • Art. 1, § 8, of the U.S. Constitution give Congress the "Power To law and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises."
    • The power to tax is both a "power to destroy," and a power "necessary to the existence and prosperity of a nation[.]"
    • "The power to impose tariffs is very clearly . . . a branch of the taxing power."
  • When delegating Constitutionally Legislative powers, Congress has, in practice, done so with particularity, clarity, and unambiguity.
    • Congress did not do that here.
  • The President has no authority to impose tariffs in peacetime, but the Government purported that this was not peace—rather, we were in a time of war. However, we are not at war with every nation in the world.
  • SCOTUS has long been reluctant to read into ambiguous statutory text extraordinary delegations of Congress's powers.
    • And it will not do so here.
  • If Trump really had the ability to assert this monstrous tariff power, then he had to have pointed to clear Congressional delegation/intent to do so. He cannot here.
  • Major Questions Doctrine interplay: this involves a major question; thus, the Court assumes that Congress would not delegate this power, absent an unambiguous delegation.
    • Concurrence cites major questions doctrine, as this is a large tax/duty decision and was ambiguous in text.
  • From this case: IEEPA authorized the President to regulate importation
    • This was not an ambiguous delegation of the ability to impose tariffs.