
The flags of Mexico, the United States and Canada fly in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico February 1, 2025. REUTERS/Jose Luis Gonzalez
Legal and Trade Experts Scrutinize Trump’s Use of Emergency Law for Tariffs
Washington, D.C. – President Donald Trump has invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify imposing 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, along with an additional 10% duty on Chinese goods, citing the need to curb fentanyl trafficking and illegal immigration.
Legal Precedent and Challenges
Trade and legal experts have noted that IEEPA has historically been used to impose economic sanctions in times of crisis, such as sanctions on Russia over its war in Ukraine. However, its use to justify import tariffs is unprecedented and is expected to face swift legal challenges.
“The courts have historically upheld the president’s power to take emergency actions, especially when they are related to national security,” said Tim Brightbill, a partner at Wiley Rein specializing in international trade law. However, he added that IEEPA has never been tested for tariffs, making this case legally uncertain.
William Reinsch, a trade expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that judges are typically reluctant to challenge a president’s definition of an emergency. However, legal scholars question whether the broad, across-the-board tariffs are sufficiently linked to the stated threats of fentanyl and illegal immigration.
Comparisons to Past Presidential Actions
The closest historical comparison to Trump’s move was President Richard Nixon’s use of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 to impose a 10% tariff on imports in 1971 amid a balance-of-payments crisis following the U.S. departure from the gold standard. Nixon’s action was upheld by the courts, as it had a clear economic justification.
Jennifer Hillman, a trade law professor at Georgetown University and former World Trade Organization judge, argued that Trump’s case may not fit the same legal framework. “The tariffs would not be applied only to fentanyl-related products, so there is not a clear reason why tariffs on all goods are ‘necessary’ to deal with a problem of fentanyl or migrants,” Hillman stated.
Potential Legal and Congressional Pushback
Trump previously threatened to use IEEPA in 2019 to impose tariffs on Mexico over border migration issues, but he ultimately withdrew the plan after Mexico agreed to strengthen its border enforcement.
Legal experts warn that if courts allow Trump’s use of IEEPA for tariffs, it could set a precedent that broadens executive tariff powers beyond congressional oversight. Peter Harrell, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, argued that such a move would undermine Congress’s traditional role in trade policy.
Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) has already introduced legislation seeking to restrict the use of IEEPA for imposing tariffs, stating that “Virginians want lower prices, not higher ones, and the last thing we need are new, senseless taxes on imports from America’s three largest trading partners.”
Economic and Trade Implications
If upheld, Trump’s tariffs could have significant economic consequences, particularly for U.S. businesses and consumers reliant on Canadian, Mexican, and Chinese imports. Critics argue that such measures could lead to higher costs for goods, supply chain disruptions, and potential retaliatory tariffs from affected trading partners.
The legal battle over Trump’s use of emergency powers for tariffs is expected to unfold in the coming weeks, with the potential to shape U.S. trade policy and executive authority for years to come.
COMMENTS