SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments in Tariff Challenges
Yesterday morning, a global audience watched the U.S. Supreme Court’s livestream of oral arguments regarding lawsuits over President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs. Government attorneys defended the administration’s reasons for imposing these tariffs, while opposing attorneys sought their removal on behalf of several U.S. states and small businesses.
Pacific Legal Foundation’s Lawsuit
In April, Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a separate lawsuit representing 11 American small businesses. The case, Princess Awesome v. United States Customs and Border Protection, was stayed by the Court of International Trade while the Supreme Court reviews the matter.
Representing Princess Awesome and others, PLF submitted a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to declare that the president exceeded his authority in imposing these broad tariffs.
Expert Commentary on Oral Arguments
Oliver Dunford, a PLF attorney involved in the Princess Awesome case, attended the Supreme Court’s oral arguments and discussed the proceedings during a livestream with colleague Damien Schiff.
The challengers argued that the tariffs exceed the president’s authority and that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the broad powers claimed by the administration.
PLF and others maintain that the tariffs’ scope goes beyond what the law permits, challenging the administration’s interpretation of IEEPA.
Author’s Summary
This case highlights significant legal debate over presidential authority and the limits of emergency economic powers in imposing tariffs impacting U.S. businesses and states.