SCOTUS Hears Arguments on Tariff Challenges
On Thursday morning, a global audience joined the U.S. Supreme Court’s livestream to follow oral arguments in the lawsuits concerning President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs. The government’s attorneys defended the administration’s decision to impose these tariffs, while two separate legal teams urged the Court to overturn them on behalf of several U.S. states and a group of small businesses.
Pacific Legal Foundation’s Involvement
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed its own lawsuit in April on behalf of eleven American small businesses. The case, Princess Awesome v. United States Customs and Border Protection, remains on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision. Meanwhile, PLF submitted an amicus brief urging the Court to declare that the president overstepped his authority by issuing the tariffs.
Discussion and Legal Interpretation
“The challengers argued that the tariffs exceed the president’s authority and that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the expansive power the administration asserts,” said Oliver Dunford, one of PLF’s attorneys handling the Princess Awesome case.
Dunford, along with his colleague Damien Schiff, analyzed the Supreme Court proceedings in a post-hearing livestream. Both discussed the possible outcomes and implications for executive authority in trade matters.
Author Summary
The Supreme Court reviewed President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff challenges, with Pacific Legal Foundation emphasizing limits to presidential power under economic emergency laws.