President Donald Trump has sent shockwaves through the global economy with his announcement of sweeping new tariffs, triggering concerns across financial markets. His proposed tariff increases, including a universal 10% tariff on imports and a 60% levy on Chinese goods, not to mention those he's applying to Canada and Mexico represent an unprecedented escalation in trade policy.
The stock market’s recent decline reflects deep uncertainty about the economic ramifications of these measures. While past presidents have wielded tariff authority aggressively, Trump’s unilateral moves raise constitutional questions that weren't being asked when previous presidents' tariff authority was called into question and the Supreme Court may be more willing to rein in his authority under the recently developed Major Questions Doctrine.
The President’s Broad Authority Over Tariffs
Historically, the President has been granted broad discretion in setting tariffs. Various laws, such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974, provide statutory authority for imposing duties under certain circumstances, such as to protect national security or counteract unfair trade practices. The courts have repeatedly upheld these powers, deferring to the executive branch on matters of international commerce. Challenges to presidential tariff decisions have generally failed, as the judiciary has been reluctant to second-guess economic and diplomatic policy choices entrusted to the executive branch.
The Algonquin Case and Past Legal Failures
Legal challenges to Trump’s tariff policies in his first term were largely unsuccessful due to the precedent set in Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc. (1976). That case affirmed the President’s authority to impose trade restrictions under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, provided they were justified on national security grounds. The Supreme Court reasoned that Congress had appropriately delegated this power, and as long as the President’s actions were tied to national security concerns, they fell within the scope of the law.
This ruling shielded Trump from legal challenges when he levied tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, despite widespread objections. However, the decision was based on the premise that these actions addressed an actual national security emergency—an argument that becomes far shakier in Trump’s current, more sweeping proposals.
The Rise of the Major Questions Doctrine
Recent Supreme Court rulings suggest that the legal landscape may have shifted dramatically since Trump’s first term. The Court has increasingly relied on the Major Questions Doctrine to rein in executive overreach, particularly in cases where an agency has exercised powers beyond what Congress clearly authorized. The doctrine, which has become a growing concern of the judiciary, holds that when an issue is of vast economic or political significance, a clear congressional mandate is required before an executive action can take effect.
The doctrine has been invoked in several high-profile cases, most notably West Virginia v. EPA (2022), where the Supreme Court struck down an Obama-era environmental regulation that significantly expanded the agency’s authority. The Court applied the same reasoning in Biden v. Nebraska (2023) to block President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, ruling that such a massive financial program required explicit congressional authorization. The underlying principle in these decisions is that broad, transformative policies cannot be implemented solely through executive interpretation of ambiguous statutes.
Given the Supreme Court’s increasing focus on limiting executive power, Trump’s tariff gambit could present the perfect opportunity to extend the doctrine into the realm of trade policy.
Applying the Major Questions Doctrine to Tariffs
Trump’s proposed tariffs go well beyond the intended scope of executive authority under existing trade laws. While past tariff decisions have typically been linked to specific national security threats, Trump’s latest modifications amount to a blanket tax on imports—a unilateral rewriting of U.S. trade policy. Congress never envisioned the President having the power to overhaul the tariff system at his sole discretion. The Constitution explicitly vests the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations in Congress, and while it has delegated some authority to the executive branch, that delegation was never intended to allow a President to bypass the legislative process and implement sweeping economic policies without congressional oversight.
While Congress has delegated some authority to the executive branch, that delegation was never intended to allow a President to bypass the legislative process and implement sweeping economic policies without congressional oversight.
Under the Major Questions Doctrine, courts should consider whether Trump’s broad-based tariffs constitute a usurpation of legislative authority. Unlike previous instances where tariffs were justified under specific statutory provisions, Trump’s current approach appears to lack a clear congressional mandate. His tariffs serve a general economic protectionist agenda rather than a narrowly tailored response to a national security crisis. As such, they are precisely the kind of far-reaching executive actions that the Court has recently deemed impermissible.
Trump's new tariffs are precisely the kind of far-reaching executive actions that the Court has recently deemed impermissible.
Extending the Doctrine to the Presidency
Until now, the Major Questions Doctrine has primarily been used to curb the power of administrative agencies, not the President directly. However, under the Unitary Executive Theory, which holds that executive agencies act as extensions of the President, there is little meaningful distinction between an agency head making sweeping regulatory decisions and the President doing so himself. If the Court is willing to strike down actions by unelected bureaucrats on the grounds that they exceed congressional authorization, it should logically apply the same standard to the President’s direct policy decisions.
Trump’s tariff agenda presents an ideal test case for expanding the Major Questions Doctrine to constrain presidential overreach. If a President can unilaterally impose import taxes that reshape entire industries and alter global trade relationships without explicit congressional approval, then the doctrine’s purpose—to ensure that fundamental policy changes come from the legislative branch, not executive fiat—would be undermined. The judiciary has already signaled its willingness to push back against executive overreach; now it must decide whether the President himself is bound by the same constraints it has imposed on his subordinates.
The Supreme Court has already signaled its willingness to push back against executive overreach; now it must decide whether the President himself is bound by the same constraints it has imposed on his subordinates.
For what it's worth, Google Gemini believes this approach has a reasonable chance at success.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s growing reliance on the Major Questions Doctrine provides a viable legal avenue to challenge Trump’s tariff policies. While past attempts to litigate his trade decisions failed due to Algonquin, the current Court’s skepticism of unchecked executive power creates a new opening. Trump’s proposed tariffs represent an unprecedented exercise of presidential authority—one that stretches far beyond the bounds of what Congress has authorized. Given the economic and political significance of these measures, the courts should intervene to prevent an unchecked expansion of executive power.
Update
2025 March 28 - The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board also believes Trump's tariff actions can be challenged in court, based on a more statutory interpretation.
Notes
Note that this was written by ChatGPT, after being trained on my own writing and being given the prompt below. After it was composed, I edited it.
Please write a piece arguing that someone should sue Trump over his tariffs on the grounds of the Major Questions Doctrine.
- Start with a short paragraph summarizing Trump's tariff actions and how they are significant and unprecedented. Mention the stock market's recent decline.
- Next talk about how the President has broad powers to set tariffs and multiple court cases have reaffirmed them.
- Paragraph about the Algonquin Case and how lawsuits failed in Trump's first term because of it. Be sure to mention how Algonquin was decided on the basis that there was a national emergency, and the powers were appropriately used with those facts.
- Paragraph(s) (as needed) on the recent jurisprudence of Major Questions Doctrine. Explain what it is. Talk about how it's a growing concern of the court. Mention that it's a reaction to the growing influence of government. Mention that it was used for student loans and any other high profile cases.
- Describe how it could be used on tariffs. Namely, a paragraph arguing that Trump is using his tariff power beyond their intended purpose and beyond the scope that Congress envisioned, essentially legislating on his own.
- Paragraph about how the Major Questions Doctrine has heretofore been used to stop agencies or bureaucrats within the executive branch but never the President. However, according to the Unitary Executive theory, they were acting on his behalf and there should be no difference, to the Court, on whether it applies to the President himself or his agents.