The fate of Trump's tariff war depends on the "key decision" of the U.S. Supreme Court

The "Major Questions Doctrine" (MQD) established by the U.S. Supreme Court during the Biden administration is now threatening the Trump administration's global tariff plan.

This principle was initially used by conservative justices to overturn two landmark policies of the Biden administration: the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) emissions reduction plan for power plants and the Department of Education's $400 billion student loan forgiveness program. At that time, the U.S. Supreme Court held that administrative agencies could not unilaterally implement policies that have a significant impact on the national economy without explicit authorization from Congress.

Recently, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) also cited this principle, ruling that the Trump administration's tariff policy exceeded its authority. According to estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, the tax implications of Trump's tariffs could reach $1.4 trillion over the next decade, far exceeding the $400 billion scale of Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. This ruling, with a unanimous vote of 3 to 0, pointed out that the Trump administration's tariff actions constitute significant economic policy that lacked explicit congressional authorization.

Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School, stated:

"If this isn't considered a major question, I can't think of what would be. This is the largest trade war since the Great Depression."

According to CCTV News, Trump's global tariff policy began with a series of actions launched on April 2. This is the largest tariff adjustment in the U.S. since the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, directly pushing the average applicable tariff in the U.S. to its highest level in a century. This measure has caused a stir in global financial markets, raising concerns that the U.S. and even the global economy may fall into recession.

Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized when overturning Biden's student loan forgiveness plan that such large-scale actions have "staggering" economic impacts. Now, this standard of judgment is again applicable to the Trump tariff case, and the Supreme Court may need to make a similar value judgment.

Presidential Exception?

The legal basis for the Trump administration's tariff policy is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. This act is vaguely worded, only authorizing the president to "regulate" imported goods in a state of emergency, but it does not explicitly authorize the president to impose large-scale tariffs. The Court of International Trade believes that this ambiguous wording is insufficient to support the president's unilateral implementation of such a large-scale tariff policy, bypassing the taxing authority explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution.

However, the U.S. Department of Justice, defending the Trump administration, pointed out that the "Major Questions Doctrine" does not apply to situations where the president directly receives congressional authorization, but should specifically target administrative agencies. Additionally, the Department of Justice emphasized that the president has traditionally held broad discretion in matters of national security and foreign affairs, which should also exclude the applicability of the "Major Questions Doctrine."

The legal and ideological divisions of this tariff dispute have also spread to the Supreme Court itself. Although six conservative justices have uniformly applied the "Major Questions Doctrine" to overturn the Biden administration's actions, there are subtle differences among them regarding the specific application of this principle Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett views it as a tool for interpreting legal texts, while Neil Gorsuch emphasizes the principle's role in maintaining the constitutional balance of power between Congress and the President.

Ronald Levin, a professor of administrative law at Washington University in St. Louis, stated that the Supreme Court has yet to provide clear applicable standards for when and how to invoke the "major questions doctrine." He remarked:

"The Court has kept all options open without providing transparent applicable standards."

For the conservative justices of the Supreme Court, the upcoming Trump tariff case is clearly a significant "stress test": will they apply the same standards to the Republican president they admire, or will they acknowledge the president's special status in national security matters and refuse to invoke this principle again?

The Ruling Will Draw a "Red Line" on Power

The upcoming ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court will not only determine the ultimate fate of the global tariff policy from the Trump era but may also become a landmark case for the boundaries of presidential power in the future.

If the Court maintains its strict stance from previous cases under the Biden administration, insisting that Congress must provide explicit authorization for economically significant measures, then Trump's tariff plan will likely face rejection. This would mean that the president's taxing authority would face such clear judicial limitations for the first time in history.

On the other hand, if the Court accepts the Trump administration's defense regarding national security and direct presidential authorization, allowing the tariffs to continue, then this ruling could further expand the president's emergency powers in the economic realm, creating new boundaries of power. This also means that international markets will continue to face the risk of trade wars, and global economic uncertainty may persist.

Risk Warning and Disclaimer

Markets are risky, and investments should be made cautiously. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account the specific investment goals, financial situation, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article align with their specific circumstances. Investing based on this is at one's own risk