The United States Supreme Court has declined to speed up its consideration of a challenge to President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs. The court’s decision means that the case will follow the normal judicial process, allowing the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the dispute before potentially being taken up by the Supreme Court.
The case was brought by Learning Resources, a family-owned toy company that won a court ruling on May 29 stating that Trump cannot unilaterally impose tariffs using the emergency authority he claimed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Two district courts have ruled that Trump’s tariffs are not justified under this law, but both cases are currently on appeal.
Learning Resources had asked the Supreme Court to take the rare step of immediately hearing the case to decide the legality of the tariffs, effectively bypassing the US Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court denied this request, leaving the tariffs in place for now.
No court has yet backed the sweeping emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed. The dispute highlights the ongoing debate over the limits of presidential power and the role of the judiciary in reviewing executive actions.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to expedite the review of Trump’s tariff dispute may have significant implications for the future of trade policy in the United States. As the case makes its way through the appeals process, it remains to be seen whether the courts will ultimately uphold or strike down Trump’s tariffs.
The US Supreme Court’s decision not to expedite the review of Trump’s tariff dispute means that the case will follow the normal judicial process. This implies that the tariffs imposed by Trump will remain in place unless the courts rule in favor of the challengers. Learning Resources, a family-owned toy company, had requested the Supreme Court to take up the case and rule on the legality of the tariffs.
The challenge to Trump’s tariffs is based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which allows the president to regulate international commerce during a national emergency. However, the law’s language is vague, and the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on Biden’s policies suggest that Trump’s tariffs may be susceptible to similar challenges. The major questions doctrine, which directs courts to reject an agency’s interpretation of a statute when it presents an issue of great political or economic significance, could be a key factor in determining the outcome of the case.