President-elect Donald Trump's ambitious plan to impose sweeping tariffs on his first day back in office faces significant legal and practical obstacles that could derail its implementation.
According to MSNBC, Trump's proposed tariffs may violate the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) that was negotiated during his first administration, setting the stage for potential legal challenges.
The controversy surrounding Trump's tariff plans highlights a complex web of constitutional powers and congressional delegation. Legal experts suggest that the Supreme Court's recent shift away from executive deference could present substantial hurdles for Trump's trade agenda, particularly under Chief Justice John Roberts' leadership.
The Constitution explicitly grants Congress, not the President, the power to regulate foreign commerce and impose tariffs. However, this authority has gradually shifted toward the executive branch through various legislative acts spanning nearly a century.
The transformation began in 1934 with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, which marked a significant departure from traditional congressional oversight. This legislation empowered President Franklin D. Roosevelt to become the first president with unilateral tariff-altering capabilities.
The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 further expanded presidential authority through Section 232, enabling tariff modifications based on national security concerns. Trump previously wielded this power during his first term to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.
The Supreme Court's recent rejection of the Chevron deference doctrine signals a potential shift in how courts might evaluate executive trade actions. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion emphasizes independent judicial review over automatic deference to executive agency interpretations.
Trump's strategy might involve invoking Section 232 to justify tariffs against Mexico and Canada, citing concerns about immigration and drug trafficking. However, this approach requires a time-consuming Department of Commerce investigation and faces possible legal scrutiny.
The Trade Act of 1974 provides another avenue through Section 301, allowing the U.S. trade representative to impose sanctions when foreign countries violate trade agreements or engage in harmful trade practices. This mechanism could be particularly relevant for Trump's planned actions against China.
Congress's historical delegation of trade authority to the executive branch has created a power imbalance that some legal scholars question. The nondelegation doctrine suggests potential constitutional limits on Congress's ability to transfer its core responsibilities.
While a 1976 Supreme Court ruling unanimously upheld Section 232's constitutionality, the current conservative court may reconsider this precedent. The major questions doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for significant executive decisions, could provide grounds for challenging Trump's tariff authority.
Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized this perspective in his recent opinion:
Courts should exercise independent judgment and not defer to an executive agency's interpretation of a congressional statute when it is ambiguous
The complex interplay between Trump's tariff plans and existing legal frameworks sets the stage for potential Supreme Court intervention. The president-elect's proposed first-day tariffs face multiple hurdles, including compliance with international agreements, statutory requirements, and constitutional limitations.
The resolution of this issue may ultimately depend on whether Congress reasserts its constitutional authority over trade policy or allows the courts to serve as the primary check on executive power. This situation exemplifies the ongoing tension between presidential authority and constitutional constraints in U.S. trade policy.
