For decades, presidents have used IEEPA to impose economic sanctions on nations or individuals. But this is the first time a President has invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs.

This brief is filed by Cato Institute scholars as amici in the case. It demonstrates that the government’s claims are inaccurate—and often hysterically so. Instead, the facts show that the tariff authority claimed by the president under IEEPA

Can a president tax Americans at will under the guise of a national emergency? The Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome and Brent Skorup dissect the high-stakes Supreme Court battle over Trump’s “fentanyl tariffs,” the broadest assertion of trade power in modern U.S. history. They explore how the case could reshape executive authority, revive dormant constitutional doctrines, and determine whether Congress or the White House truly controls U.S. trade policy.

Congress has broadly delegated its constitutional tariff powers to the president, and there is a real risk that the legislative and judicial branches would be unwilling or unable to check a future president’s abuse of US trade law as currently written.

In abusing the statute, President Trump provided a roadmap for Congress to reform Section 301 to ensure that future presidents cannot follow his lead.

With several Section 232 tariffs still in place, and the status of other investigations unclear, the law presents an early test for the Biden administration and a signal about its future trade policy plans.

We don’t know how the Court will rule in this case. If refunds do become a giant and controversial headache, however, we all should know that they didn’t have to be.

The Trump administration’s tariff increases are leading to mounting headaches for American small businesses. 

2026 will almost certainly bring more (fantastical) proposals for funding new federal programs and policies through tariff revenue.