Supreme Court urged to block Trump’s tariffs ahead of November hearing
Arguing that the move is unlawful and amounts to an unprecedented $3 trillion tax burden on Americans.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Nov. 5 to determine whether the president overstepped his authority in implementing levies under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Image: REUTERS.
Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to an expedited review of the tariffs’ legality, following an appellate court’s ruling that they were illegal. Oral arguments are scheduled for November 5.
In September, the court ordered all parties in the now consolidated case to submit written briefs ahead of the hearing. Monday’s submissions came in the form of two separate response briefs, countering the government’s September 19 opening brief.
Although differing in tone and emphasis, both filings shared the same core message: tariff authority lies with Congress, not the president, and cannot be invoked at will under an emergency declaration.
The plaintiffs challenged Trump’s claim of statutory and constitutional authority under IEEPA to impose global tariffs, arguing that the act only allows the president to block or freeze property linked to foreign entities.
“IEEPA does not give the President such vast unilateral power. Indeed, it does not give the President any taxing or tariffing power,” stated the brief filed by plaintiffs in Learning Resources, Inc. et al v. Trump. The Supreme Court had previously consolidated this case with V.O.S. Selections, Inc. et al v. Trump.
Both filings accused the administration of misinterpreting verbs within the statute such as “investigate,” “block,” and “regulate,” asserting that these terms refer to embargoes, asset freezes, or sanctions—not taxes.
The Learning Resources brief also tied this argument to the constitutional separation of powers, emphasizing that “None of the verbs surrounding ‘regulate’ connotes taxing authority,” and that neither IEEPA nor its predecessor, the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), was ever intended to grant the president unlimited tariff powers.
Meanwhile, the V.O.S. Selections brief rejected the Trump administration’s claim that chronic trade deficits constituted an “unusual and extraordinary threat” justifying emergency tariffs.
“That is a breathtaking assertion of power, and one would expect to see an unequivocal grant of authority from Congress to support it—if the Constitution permits it at all,” the brief said. “Yet the statute the President invokes, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), never mentions tariffs, and in 50 years no other President has used it for that purpose.”
The Learning Resources filing warned that the president’s tariff actions could bankrupt small U.S. businesses and cost the average American at least $1,000 per year.
“By the government’s own account, those actions amount to an over $3 trillion tax increase on Americans over the next decade,” the brief noted, adding that Trump had “raised and lowered, paused and resumed, and threatened and unthreatened tariffs at will, for a grab bag of reasons.”
The V.O.S. brief emphasized that small businesses are particularly vulnerable, as many depend on goods efficiently produced abroad. “These ever-changing tariffs multiply their costs, disrupt supply chains, damage relationships with suppliers and customers, and make it impossible to plan,” it stated. “The legal obligation of these tariffs falls entirely on American businesses, not foreign producers or governments.”
Despite slight differences in tone and focus, both sides agreed on the outcome they seek:
“This Court should hold the IEEPA tariffs unlawful, and finally put an end to the unprecedented and unrelenting tax burden on Americans,” the Learning Resources brief concluded.
_______________________________________________________________
Edited by: Cofast News Editorial Team (according to Supplychaindive)
