In the 1630s, King Charles I tried to tax English people without the consent of their legislature. He lost his head.
In the 2020s, Donald Trump tried to tax Americans without the consent of Congress. He just lost his case.
Constitutional Clash Over Tariffs
A tariff is a tax. The Trump tariffs, imposed in and after April 2025, were projected to raise as much as $2.3 trillion over ten years. The Constitution assigns authority over taxes, including tariffs, to Congress, a principle rooted in English constitutional history: an executive who can tax without permission from elected representatives risks becoming a tyrant.
President Trump proposed various ways to spend the revenue generated by the tariffs, including aid to farmers, direct payments to taxpayers, and the creation of a sovereign wealth fund. However, the Constitution assigns the power of spending, like taxing, to Congress, not the president.
The situation raises concerns about potential conflicts regarding war powers. While Congress traditionally holds the power of the purse, and therefore a check on war-making, a president able to raise revenue independently might attempt to bypass congressional authorization for military action. The precedent set by Congress approving funding for President Clinton’s intervention in Yugoslavia, even without a formal authorization vote, illustrates the complexities of this dynamic.
Averted Constitutional Crisis
Trump’s tariffs were presented as a way to generate revenue outside the constraints of Article I of the Constitution. Had the Supreme Court upheld the tariffs, it would have fundamentally altered the balance of power. Instead, the court rejected the scheme, reaffirming that, like all presidents before him, Trump must seek congressional approval for funding—whether for a potential conflict with Iran or any other purpose.
Trump’s legal argument relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1970s, claiming it allowed him to impose permanent tariffs for any reason. This argument was considered far-fetched, as the IEEPA was intended to reduce presidential emergency powers, reforming a previous law. The IEEPA requires a formal declaration of national emergency, and the word “tariff” does not appear within the law’s provisions.
The economic impact of Trump’s tariffs has already been felt by Americans. Increased costs for electricity, beer, and shoes are all attributed, in part, to the imposed tariffs.
Looking Ahead
The question now is whether President Trump will accept the Supreme Court’s decision. While potentially humiliating, it offers him a way to avoid further legal challenges. Trump retains other avenues for disrupting international trade, but these are subject to stricter legal limitations. Until Congress acts to further protect Americans from protectionism, the future of U.S. Prosperity and security remains uncertain.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has brought a measure of stability. U.S. Stocks surged following the decision, and consumers may soon see some relief from increased costs. Relations with allies could also improve. Unlike King Charles I, President Trump will be able to rest tonight.
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the Trump tariffs projected to raise?
The Trump tariffs imposed in and after April 2025 were projected to raise as much as $2.3 trillion over ten years.
What is the IEEPA?
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act is a law passed in the 1970s that was intended to reduce presidential emergency powers.
What was the outcome of the Supreme Court case regarding the tariffs?
The Supreme Court quashed Trump’s scheme to impose tariffs without congressional approval.
How will this ruling affect the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches in the long term?
