A key reason a federal appeals court struck down Donald Trump’s widespread tariffs was the complete absence of “procedural safeguards” in the emergency law he used. The court highlighted this as a critical flaw, suggesting Congress never intended for the IEEPA to be used for such a sweeping economic purpose.
In its 7-4 ruling, the court noted that laws that do grant the president tariff authority, like the Trade Expansion Act, come with clear limits and processes. They typically require investigations, consultations with industry, and specific findings before duties can be imposed. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) has none of these checks and balances when it comes to tariffs.
The judges argued that this lack of procedural rules was a telling sign that Congress did not envision the IEEPA as a tariff-setting mechanism. Granting a president the power to tax global imports with no statutory guidance or limitations would be an extraordinary delegation of legislative authority, which the court was unwilling to read into the law.
This focus on procedural safeguards is crucial as the case heads to the Supreme Court. It frames the issue not just as a matter of presidential power, but as a question of statutory interpretation and the importance of clear, congressionally-mandated processes in constraining executive action.
