Posted on 11/04/2025 2:03:55 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) provides the President broad authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions following a declaration of national emergency. IEEPA, like the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) from which it branched, sits at the center of the modern U.S. sanctions regime. Changes in the use of IEEPA powers since the act’s enactment in 1977 have caused some to question whether the statute’s oversight provisions are robust enough given the sweeping economic powers it confers upon the President during a declared emergency.
Over the course of the twentieth century, Congress delegated increasing amounts of emergency power to the President by statute. TWEA was one such statute. Congress passed TWEA in 1917 to regulate international transactions with enemy powers following the U.S. entry into the First World War. Congress expanded the act during the 1930s to allow the President to declare a national emergency in times of peace and assume sweeping powers over both domestic and international transactions. Between 1945 and the early 1970s, TWEA became the central means to impose sanctions as part of U.S. Cold War strategy. Presidents used TWEA to block international financial transactions, seize U.S.-based assets held by foreign nationals, restrict exports, modify regulations to deter the hoarding of gold, limit foreign direct investment in U.S. companies, and impose tariffs on all imports into the United States.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45618
“In 1971, after President Nixon suspended the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold, he made use of Section 5(b) of TWEA to declare a state of emergency and place a 10% ad valorem supplemental duty on all dutiable goods entering the United States.”
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45618
IEEPA vs Section 232 for Imposing Tariffs in Response to a
National Security Threat
While a President could likely use IEEPA to impose additional tariffs on imported goods as President Nixon did under TWEA, no President has done so. Instead, Presidents have turned to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 in cases of purported emergency. Section 232 provides that if the Secretary of Commerce “finds that an article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security,” then the President may take action to adjust the imports such that they will no longer impair national security. While the use of Section 232 requires findings by the Secretary of Commerce, the restrictions and reporting requirements of the NEA do not apply. For that reason, Section 232 may be an attractive source of presidential authority for imposing additional tariffs for national security purposes. Using this authority, President Donald J. Trump applied additional duties on steel and aluminum in March 2018.
However, IEEPA is not subject to the same procedural restraints as Section 232. As no investigation is required, IEEPA authorities can be invoked at any time in response to a national emergency based on an “unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States.” As such, IEEPA may be a source of authority for the President to impose a tariff quickly. On May 30, 2019, President Trump announced his intention to use IEEPA to impose and gradually increase a 5% tariff on all goods imported from Mexico until “the illegal migration crisis is alleviated through effective actions taken by Mexico.” The tariffs were scheduled to be implemented on June 10, 2019, with 5% increases to take effect at the beginning of each subsequent month. On June 7, 2019, President Trump announced that that “The Tariffs scheduled to be implemented by the U.S. [on June 10], against Mexico, are hereby indefinitely suspended.”
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45618
North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act §201(a)(1)
(1993):31 “The President may proclaim—(A) such modifications or continuation of any duty, (B) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or (C) such additional duties, as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to carry out or apply [specified] articles ... of the Agreement.”
“Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015
§103(a):35 “Whenever the President determines that one or more existing duties or other import restrictions of any foreign country or the United States are unduly burdening and restricting the foreign trade of the United States and that the purposes, policies, priorities, and objectives of this chapter will be promoted thereby, the President ... may ... proclaim—(i) such modification or continuance of any existing duty, (ii) such continuance of existing duty-free or excise treatment, or (iii) such additional duties, as the President determines to be required or appropriate to carry out any such trade agreement.... The President shall notify Congress of the President’s intention to enter into an agreement under this subsection.” This authority is subject to the following restrictions: “No proclamation may be made under paragraph (1) that—(A) reduces any rate of duty (other than a rate of duty that does not exceed 5 percent ad valorem on June 29, 2015) to a rate of duty which is less than 50 percent of the rate of such duty that applies on June 29, 2015; (B) reduces the rate of duty below that applicable”
“In Cornet Stores v. Morton, a case involving a challenge to a presidential proclamation that imposed a 10% surcharge duty on certain imported merchandise in light of a declared national emergency, the plaintiffs sought recovery of the import surcharges they had paid, relying on the jurisdictional provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.37 Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the matter, finding it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the former Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Court (Customs Court), which has since been replaced at the trial level by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT).”
“Cornet Stores v. Morton, 632 F.2d 96, 97 (9th Cir. 1980).”
In 1928, a similar challenge was brought in the Customs Court in J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States. In Hampton, an importer challenged an increase in duties on certain imported goods as a result of a presidential proclamation issued under Section 315 of the Tariff Act of 1922, which provides:
[W]henever the President, upon investigation of the differences in costs of production of articles wholly or in part the growth or product of the United States and of like or similar articles wholly or in part the growth or product of competing foreign countries, shall find it thereby shown that the duties fixed in this act do not equalize the said differences in costs of production in the United States and the principal competing country he shall, by such investigation, ascertain said differences and determine and proclaim the changes in classifications or increases or decreases in any rate of duty provided in this act shown by said ascertained differences in such costs of production necessary to equalize the same.”
There may be more:
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44707
The Trade Act of 1974 gives potus authority.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-10384/pdf/COMPS-10384.pdf
Trade Act of 1974 (excerpt)
SEC. 122. BALANCE-OF-PAYMENTS AUTHORITY.
(a) Whenever fundamental international payments problems require special import measures to restrict imports—
(1) to deal with large and serious United States balanceof- payments deficits,
(2) to prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets, or
(3) to cooperate with other countries in correcting an international balance-of-payments disequilibrium, the President shall proclaim, for a period not exceeding 150 days (unless such period is extended by Act of Congress)—
(A) a temporary import surcharge, not to exceed 15 percent ad valorem, in the form of duties (in addition to those already imposed, if any) on articles imported into the United States;
[...]
The Liberal judges have it much easier — Trump is wrong about everything, all the time. 100%.
LA Times -absolute trash. Many Presidents have imposed tariffs the same way Trump has.
They don't want the Supreme Court to view President Trump's tariffs through the lens of managing foreign affairs, engaging in economic diplomacy to rapidly reverse the manufacturing "emergency" that arose from decades of offshoring after WW2 to reconstruct Japan, German, and east Asia.
-PJ
I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump’s tariffs are overturned in a 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court. The authority of Congress to lay and impose taxes, duties, etc. is clear as day.
My take is that the learning toy manufacturers and wine distributers are in the breeze. They did not consider the Country’s welfare in this self serving suit. I intend to return the favor and not patronize any companies involved. How many US $ are wasted in the suit in the disruption & uncertainty? Hopefully no matter the outcome these companies will lose business & market share.
The Conservatives of the Supreme Court (at least for 2nd Amendment issues) like to link decisions to past history. So the Nullification Crisis might be relevant to the final decision.
So the following is a brief history of that Crisis:
Tariffs and Ordinance of Nullification
Tariff of 1828: This high protective tariff was seen as harmful to Southern economies, leading to accusations that it favored Northern manufacturers.
Ordinance of Nullification: In November 1832, South Carolina declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null and void within its borders, asserting its right to reject federal laws.
Federal Response
Andrew Jackson's Stance: President Jackson opposed nullification, asserting federal supremacy. He threatened military action against South Carolina if it did not comply with federal law.
Force Bill: Congress passed this bill, allowing Jackson to use military force to enforce tariff collection.
Resolution
The crisis was resolved through a compromise. In March 1833, Congress passed a compromise tariff that gradually reduced tariffs over the next decade. South Carolina rescinded its nullification ordinance, but the issue of states’ rights versus federal authority remained contentious, foreshadowing future conflicts leading to the Civil War.
Historically, the bad news was that it was resolved via actions by Congress. Interestingly, the resolution also involved with authorizing the President to use the military against a state to collect money from valid federal laws. You have to wonder if the Sanctuary States are interfering with the federal government from collection fees/fines owed by illegal immigrants?
According to the article they think that there are three doctrines that will likely determine the Supreme Court ruling:
First, they say the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning.
Second, they believe the laws passed by Congress should be interpreted based on their words.
(Third)...That 1977 law says the president may declare a national emergency to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat” involving national security, foreign policy or the economy of the United States. Faced with such an emergency, he may “investigate, block ... or regulate” the “importation or exportation” of any property.....”
One thing is for sure. In this day and age- Leaving it up to congress to deal with tariffs is about as useless as anything could be. They can’t even keep the government open. The founders never envisioned congress ever turning into such a worthless endeavor for the country. They never envisioned it being full of socialist and communists who hate this country. The reason the current trade situation was causing such destruction to the country is because of congress.
Trump said the nation’s “persistent” balance of payments deficit over five decades was such an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”Something which has persisted for five decades is as unusual as breathing for fifty years.
A balance of payments deficit for fifty consecutive years is not an extraordinary threat. It has been an ordinary, every day occurrence for fifty years.
Scotus tends to bend over backwards to satisfy the Executive on this sort of case, but this one may be a challenge. IEEPA is the only authority claimed, and it does not use the word tariff or any synonym for tariff.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69888953/66/vos-selections-inc-v-united-states/
V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, 1:25-cv-00066, (Ct. Intl. Trade Aug 29, 2025) ECF No. 66
At 5:
The Government appeals a decision of the Court of International Trade setting aside five Executive Orders that imposed tariffs of unlimited duration on nearly all goods from nearly every country in the world, holding that the tariffs were not authorized by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. Because we agree that IEEPA's grant of presidential authority to "regulate" imports does not authorize the tariffs imposed by the Executive Orders, we affirm.
At 44:
VI
We affirm the CIT's holding that the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders exceed the authority delegated to the President by IEEPA's text. We also affirm the CIT's grant of declaratory relief that the orders are "invalid as contrary to law." V.O.S. Selections, 772 F. Supp. 3d at 1383-84. We vacate the CIT's grant of a permanent injunction universally enjoining the enforcement of the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs and remand for the CIT to reevaluate the propriety of granting injunctive relief and the proper scope of such relief, after considering all four eBay factors and the Supreme Court's holding in CASA.
Congress is wholly dysfunctional — does that count?
I think so. But I hope they also say we don’t have to refund the countries.
An emergency is not defined by the time that a condition has been ongoing but by the condition of the patient (Country) at the time the emergency is declared. Most emergencies develop over time.
The Country is clearly in a state of emergency caused by the trade paradigm that has been allowed to develop through weakness & corruption. Our economy is disastrously weakened and our lack of robust supply chain puts US at acute risk.
It is unconscionable to ignore the hollowing out of US manufacturing & industry, to ignore the acute threat caused by our reliance on unfriendly nations for essentials such as medications.
Pretending otherwise is disingenuous. The Supreme Court is certainly wise & honorable enough to review the facts rather than being fooled by a partisan narrative concocted for political means and personal profit.
David “DNC Dave” Savage is still writing political fiction for the DNC, eh?
I still remember the days when his tongue was firmly and permanently embedded in Rapin’ Bill Clinton’s posterior...
Savage was a big defender of Rapin’ Bill Clinton back during the impeachment wars.
TOTAL partisan Democrat POS.
The nullification crisis bears no relationship to the question SCOTUS is taking up.
Something which has persisted for five decades is as unusual as breathing for fifty years.A balance of payments deficit for fifty consecutive years is not an extraordinary threat. It has been an ordinary, every day occurrence for fifty years.
An emergency is not defined by the time that a condition has been ongoing but by the condition of the patient (Country) at the time the emergency is declared. Most emergencies develop over time.
The Country is clearly in a state of emergency caused by the trade paradigm that has been allowed to develop through weakness & corruption. Our economy is disastrously weakened and our lack of robust supply chain puts US at acute risk.
A trade imbalance is neither unusual nor extraordinary. It may rise to levels that threaten the economy but that does not make it unusual or extraordinary.
A persistent condition which has continued for over fifty years can hardly qualify as unusual. That's like saying the Dallas Cowboys missing out on the Super Bowl is unusual.
Before the Court, the IEEPA is the only claim of Executive power to impose tariffs and it does not say anything about tariffs. The IEEPA, if applicable, authorizes the President to “regulate” a variety of international economic transactions, including imports.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not bestow emergency powers to the Executive branch for that which has been going on for the past fifty years and which will continue going on for the foreseeable future. There is no emergency which cannot be addressed by the Congress to whom the power to impose tariffs is bestowed by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court should address this shortly. Trump had planned to attend oral argument but then he decided he would not.
I’m afraid you are missing the point. The trade imbalance itself is not the emergency. It’s what the trade conditions have done to the Country. It is not rational to ignore the results and the effect imposing tariffs has made. Seems like missing the forest to concentrate on the trees.
The cumulative effects of other Countries tariffs and practices and US low tariffs placed the US at such a disadvantage than manufacturers fled to where they could maximize profits. That destroyed our economic base at first gradually and then rapidlt. As I noted this is an emergency at multiple level.
Good post sir.
Your globalist free traitor dna is showing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.