If Trump Has The Power To Ban Trade, Then He Has The Power To Moderate It Through Tariffs

Tariffs are the most flexible, peaceful, and effective policy instrument to regulate importation. That’s the economic, diplomatic, and common-sense context as the Supreme Court considers whether presidents have the authority to use tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The plaintiffs assert IEEPA can’t be stretched to include tariffs because, although IEEPA empowers the president to “regulate … importation” of property in an emergency, it makes no mention of the word “tariffs.”

Rejecting this argument, Solicitor General John Sauer cites Soto v. United States (2025), where the court explicitly rejected the proposition that Congress when delegating specific authorities needs to state its intent in a particular way or use “magic words.” In the same manner for IEEPA, Congress need not use any particular vocabulary — “tariff,” “duty,” or “tax” — to delegate those powers; context and purpose suffice. In this context, Congress’s aim was to arm the president with an expansive list of emergency economic weapons, not to catalog every tool by name.

Oral arguments earlier this month explored the plaintiff’s logic gap: How could a president bar all imports but not impose even a 1 percent tariff? The government’s answer: To “regulate … importation” must naturally include tariffs because a tariff is the quintessential means of controlling imports.