Are Trump's tariffs legal?

Summary

Planet Money: Are Trump's Tariffs Legal? Released June 11, 2025

Introduction In this compelling episode of Planet Money, NPR host Willa Rubin delves into the intricate legal battle surrounding former President Donald Trump's imposition of tariffs. Centered around the experiences of Susan Weber, a state senator from Montana and a member of the Blackfeet Nation, the episode unpacks the constitutional debates and legal challenges that question the legitimacy of these tariffs.

---

Susan Weber and the Impact of Tariffs Susan Weber, deeply rooted in her Montana community and the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, provides a personal lens through which listeners understand the tangible effects of Trump's tariffs. From [02:16] onwards, Weber narrates how the 25% tariffs on Canadian goods disrupted local businesses:

Susan Weber [02:16]: "When President Donald Trump basically started a trade war with Canada, put a 25% tariff on lots of Canadian goods coming into the U.S., now Susan is..."

She recounts stories of businesses suffering—campgrounds losing Canadian tourists and farmers seeing orders vanish. A particularly striking example is a rancher who, after paying a $300 tariff for a tractor part, underscores the precariousness faced by those living on the economic margins:

Jeff Kuo [02:45]: "My community people live on the margins. Are you going to be able to pay your light bill this week?"

Legal Foundations of Tariffs The episode transitions into the legal framework governing tariffs, featuring insights from Kathleen Claussen, a Georgetown law professor specializing in trade. Starting at [07:24], Claussen elucidates the constitutional authority over tariffs:

Kathleen Claussen [07:31]: "The fundamental thing to understand about tariffs is that in the United States, tariffs are actually the responsibility of Congress."

She references Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce and impose tariffs. However, during Trump's administration, older statutes from the Cold War era were revived to grant the President limited tariff-imposing powers under specific circumstances ([08:24]).

Trump's Use of IEEPA A pivotal moment in the episode occurs at [13:38], when Rubin introduces the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Claussen explains that IEEPA was traditionally a tool for sanctions, not for imposing broad tariffs:

Susan Weber [16:53]: "Congress passed IPA in 1977. It's a tool to help US presidents respond to international crises."

Trump's administration's innovative and unprecedented use of IEEPA to justify sweeping tariffs on multiple countries stunned trade lawyers and policymakers alike. This reinterpretation bypassed the conventional three-digit statutes like Section 301 and Section 232, which were not designed for large-scale, immediate tariff implementations ([13:42]).

Legal Challenges and Constitutional Debate Susan Weber spearheads one of the first lawsuits challenging these tariffs, arguing that Trump's invocation of IEEPA oversteps constitutional boundaries. At [07:09], the discussion emphasizes the core of the legal contention:

Willa Rubin [07:09]: "At the heart of the lawsuit and all of the lawsuits challenging the tariffs, there's a pretty simple idea, a basic fact about the Constitution."

The plaintiffs present three main arguments:

1. Definition of Emergency: The declared emergencies—illegal immigration and the fentanyl crisis—do not meet the "unusual and extraordinary" threat criteria stipulated by IEEPA ([19:14]).
2. Scope of IEEPA: IEEPA was not intended for imposing tariffs, as it historically served sanctions purposes. The broad interpretation to include tariffs is contested ([21:24]).
3. Constitutional Power Allocation: The Supreme Court may view the delegation of tariff authority to the President as a fundamental overreach, violating the Constitution's allocation of powers to Congress ([23:58]).

Claussen notes the difficulty plaintiffs face, as courts often grant presidents substantial leeway on national security matters:

Kathleen Claussen [20:34]: "The courts tend to give presidents a lot of leeway."

Court Rulings and Future Implications By [27:14], the episode reports significant court decisions that hinder Trump's tariff implementations:

Susan Weber [27:14]: "On May 28, the Court of International Trade in New York declared that IPA does not authorize the President to make these big sweeping tariffs, and the court ordered the administration to stop collecting on them."

These rulings necessitate the Trump administration to potentially revert to the slower, established tariff procedures under the three-digit statutes. While appeals may prolong the uncertainty, the immediate impact signifies a judicial pushback against executive overreach.

Conclusion Planet Money masterfully navigates the complex intersection of economics, law, and politics, using Susan Weber's advocacy to highlight broader constitutional debates. The episode underscores the fragile balance of power between Congress and the Presidency, especially in the realm of international trade. As legal battles unfold, the outcome will not only determine the fate of Trump's tariffs but also set precedents for future executive actions in trade policy.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• Susan Weber [02:45]: "My community people live on the margins. Are you going to be able to pay your light bill this week?"
• Kathleen Claussen [07:31]: "The fundamental thing to understand about tariffs is that in the United States, tariffs are actually the responsibility of Congress."
• Susan Weber [16:53]: "Congress passed IPA in 1977. It's a tool to help US presidents respond to international crises."
• Jeff Kuo [02:45]: "My community people live on the margins. Are you going to be able to pay your light bill this week?"
• Kathleen Claussen [20:34]: "The courts tend to give presidents a lot of leeway."
• Susan Weber [27:14]: "On May 28, the Court of International Trade in New York declared that IPA does not authorize the President to make these big sweeping tariffs, and the court ordered the administration to stop collecting on them."

---

Credits This episode was produced by Sam Yellowhorse Kessler, edited by Josh Zhang, with fact-checking by Ciera Juarez, and engineering by Harry Paul, assisted by Gilly Moon. Executive Producer Alex Goldmark guided the production. Special thanks are due to Andy Morris, Emily Ley, Rebecca Melsky, Josh Robbins, Eva St. Clair, Jonathan St. Ghidor, and Monica Tranell.

For more insights into how tariffs and trade impact the economy, explore our recent episodes linked in the show notes.

Transcript

[Advertiser 1]

This message comes from Carrier committed to providing climate and energy products and services to help enhance lives. More information [e-mail] Carrier for the World we share support for this podcast and.

[Advertiser 2]

The following message come from Middlesex County, New Jersey. Food manufacturing companies like Gong Cook are there and benefit from the location, infrastructure and cost of doing business. Middlesex County, New Jersey provides access to over 50 million customers in the Northeast Corridor without the the costs of other major metropolitan areas.

[Advertiser 1]

Your business can be there and benefit from this too.

[Advertiser 2]

Go to discover middlesex.com food to learn.

[Advertiser 1]

All the advantages and connect with a dedicated business advisor.

[Willa Rubin]

This is Planet Money from npr. Susan Weber has spent her whole life in Montana and she loves everything about it.

[Jeff Kuo]

The mountains, prairies, the plains, the smell. You can smell the air. You can smell the flowers, the wildlife. Occasionally a little fox will run across the road.

[Susan Weber]

Susan grew up here on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. She's a member of the Blackfeet Nation. From her back porch, she's got the Rocky Mountains to the west and the Great Plains to the east.

[Willa Rubin]

And to the north is Canada. The border is a short drive away.

[Jeff Kuo]

Well, it's just imaginary line, right?

[Susan Weber]

Can't even see it.

[Jeff Kuo]

No, you don't need to see it.

[Susan Weber]

And for most of her life, that line really did feel imaginary. The members of Susan's tribe are part of the Blackfoot confederacy and they live on both sides of the border.

[Willa Rubin]

So Susan and her tribe members, they cross into Canada all the time. Canada is where their cousins live, where they buy their lumber, where they sell their wheat and their grain. When they drive across the border, they just show their tribal id. They don't even need a passport.

[Susan Weber]

And then in March, that imaginary line started to feel like a barrier. That's when President Donald Trump basically started a trade war with Canada, put a 25% tariff on lots of Canadian goods coming into the U.S. now Susan is.

[Willa Rubin]

A state senator and and soon she started hearing stories from people in her community about how the tariffs and the trade war were hurting them. A campground that relied on Canadian tourists was suddenly a lot emptier. A farmer who sold green to Canada saw orders disappear.

[Susan Weber]

And she heard a story about a rancher whose tractor wheel broke down. The rancher went across the border to buy a part, but when he came back, the border guard said he had to pay the new tariff. It was an additional 300 some dollars.

[Jeff Kuo]

My community people live on the margins. Are you going to be able to pay your light bill this week? Are you going to be able to put gas in your car? Just that little subtle change, that few dollars, could mean that you go hungry for the day.

[Willa Rubin]

Many of her neighbors, people she represents, many of them told her these tariffs felt wrong.

[Jeff Kuo]

My people were calling me, Susan, what can we do? You know, oh, this is happening. And so being who I am, you know, I got on it.

[Susan Weber]

Susan starts thinking these tariffs are huge and disruptive. And she's like, can the President do this? Is there any way to challenge these tariffs?

[Willa Rubin]

She starts talking with a local lawyer, and they look closely at how the president is creating these tariffs. They. And they realize they might have a case here because of what's in the Constitution.

[Jeff Kuo]

Hey, there. It was right in front of my face, in front of everybody, every American's face, right there.

[Susan Weber]

Susan and her lawyer, they start to build this argument that the president's tariffs are illegal, maybe even unconstitutional. The way Susan sees it, the President has overstepped his power.

[Willa Rubin]

So Susan and her lawyer compile a list. Collect receipts, document lost revenue. They write up a bunch of examples of how the tariffs harmed the people of the Blackfeet Nation, and they sue the federal government.

[Jeff Kuo]

So that's the beginnings of Weber versus the United States.

[Susan Weber]

Weber, as in Susan Weber versus the United States and the Department of homeland security. On April 4, Susan became one of the first people to sue the Trump administration and challenge the president's new tariffs on behalf of her tribe, but also kind of for everybody.

[Jeff Kuo]

You know, what's good for the Native American is good for Montana, and what's good for the Native American is good for the United States.

[Willa Rubin]

Right now, Susan's lawsuit is one of about a dozen federal cases trying to stop the tariffs. And they're all making a version of the same argument that when it comes to tariffs, there are rules, there are laws, there are constitutional principles, and that Trump is breaking them. Hello, and welcome to Planet Money. I'm Willa Rubin.

[Susan Weber]

And I'm Jeff Kuo. President Trump has come up with a very creative way to put tariffs on many countries. It involves a law that, until now, has never been used for tariffs.

[Willa Rubin]

Before today on the show, what power does the President have when it comes to tariffs? Where do these powers come from and why? Trump's creative interpretation might have a shot in the courts.

[Advertiser 1]

This message comes from Charles Schwab. When it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices like full service, wealth management, and advice when you need it. You can also invest on your own and trade on Think or swim. Visit schwab.com to learn more. This message is from Spectrum Business. From Independently owned storefronts just open for business to established professional services run from large offices. Spectrum is committed to delivering connectivity solutions for any size business. Create a plan made for your business with fast, reliable Internet, TV packages, phone, mobile services and more. All backed by the Spectrum commitment. From one employee to thousands, Spectrum keeps your business connected. Learn [e-mail] business this message comes from DSW. Where'd you get those shoes? Easy. They're from DSW. Because DSW has the exact right shoes for whatever you're into right now. You know, like the sneakers that make office hours feel like happy hour, the boots that turn grocery aisles into runways, and all the styles that show off the many sides of you, from daydreamer to multitasker and everything in between. Because you do it all in really great shoes. Find a shoe for every you at your DSW store or dsw.com okay, so.

[Susan Weber]

Let'S dive into the lawsuit that Susan Weber filed, Weber versus the United States. At the heart of the lawsuit and all of the lawsuits challenging the tariffs, there's a pretty simple idea, a basic fact about the Constitution.

[Willa Rubin]

And to help us explain it, we called up Kathleen Claussen. She is a law professor at Georgetown who specializes in trade.

[Advertiser 2]

Obviously, trade is pretty hot right now.

[Susan Weber]

So this is your moment.

[Advertiser 2]

This is the moment for all trade lawyers, even if they are not pleased about that.

[Susan Weber]

Before she was a law professor, Kathleen actually worked as a trade lawyer in the government, first under President Obama and then under President Trump during his first term. And she says the fundamental thing to understand about tariffs is that in the United States, tariffs are actually the responsibility of Congress.

[Advertiser 2]

Congress is the branch that is tasked in the Constitution with the tariff authority. That's very clear. No one's disputing that. It's right there in Article 1.

[Susan Weber]

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and to collect taxes and duties, meaning only Congress can create tariffs.

[Willa Rubin]

But in the 1960s and 70s, Congress passed some laws that allowed presidents to make their own tariffs in certain circumstances.

[Susan Weber]

It's not like a president can just like randomly come up with some tariff that he wants and blammo, there it is.

[Advertiser 2]

Blammo is not in the, in the law.

[Advertiser 1]

That's.

[Advertiser 2]

That's true.

[Willa Rubin]

The laws that give the president permission to create tariffs were mostly created in the middle of the Cold War. Congress saw all these new foreign policy and national security risks, and they knew that they might move too slowly. That's one of the reasons they gave the president some powers around tariffs.

[Susan Weber]

But for decades, these tariff laws, they were kind of seen as relics from a different time.

[Advertiser 2]

Everybody knew that these were on the books, but they had not been used for many years, or if they had been used very sparingly in very targeted.

[Susan Weber]

Ways until President Donald Trump took office in 2017, he came in promising to raise tariffs on China. So his trade advisors went searching around in these cold War era laws, trying to figure out how he could do that.

[Willa Rubin]

What they found was that Congress only gave the President the power to create tariffs in specific circumstances. The rules are laid out in a few different statutes.

[Advertiser 2]

Most of these statutes go by their three digits. So if you want to sound cool in trade world, you have to start talking in three digits, right? Section 301, section 232, section 201, section 122, 338, the list goes on.

[Susan Weber]

Each of those sections, those three digit statutes covers a special circumstance. Like section 232 that lets the president put tariffs on imports when national security is at stake, or section 122 that, that lets the President create temporary tariffs if we're running up a serious deficit, like a trade deficit with another country.

[Willa Rubin]

Now, Kathleen had a front row seat to all of this. She was at the office of the US Trade Representative during Trump's first term and she was assigned to look at another one of those statutes, Section 301, which says the President can impose a tariff in response to another country's unfair trade practices.

[Susan Weber]

Kathleen's task was to help make a case against China if she could prove that China was doing something unfair. According to Section 301, Trump could put tariffs on Chinese products. And, you know, for many years, US Companies had been complaining about Chinese companies stealing their intellectual property and trade secrets.

[Willa Rubin]

So Kathleen and her colleagues opened up a formal investigation. She followed the steps required by section 301. She interviewed companies that said they'd been harmed by Chinese spying, talked to cybersecurity specialists, collected evidence. There's a public hearing and a 200 page report.

[Advertiser 2]

So we spent many months collecting all this information, putting it together, writing it up, making sure that we follow all of the instructions of the statute, what Congress has asked. So check, check, check, and make your recommendation and off it goes to the President.

[Susan Weber]

So you were like the trade inquisitor.

[Advertiser 2]

I'm going to put that on my CV.

[Willa Rubin]

The whole process took about a year, but by April 2018, the Trump administration announces they've collected enough evidence about China's unfair trade practices. And so by the powers invested in him by section 301, President Trump is allowed to put new tariffs on China. He announces a new 25% tax on billions of dollars worth of products from aircraft parts to catalytic converters to water heaters.

[Susan Weber]

And Kathleen wasn't the only one looking for tariff opportunities. Around the same time, Trump's Secretary of Commerce launches an investigation under another law, Section 232. After a few months, they determine that foreign imports of steel and aluminum are harming national security. So that allows Trump to put tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.

[Willa Rubin]

There are also investigations for washing machines, solar panels. That is basically how the President's tariff powers work. There are specific laws that Congress has created with specific rules. The President has to follow investigations that can take a while, anywhere from a few months to over a year. Trump learned in his first term that following the rules of these three digit statutes can be slow and he can only create specific kinds of tariffs.

[Susan Weber]

But when Donald Trump was back on the campaign trail in 2024, he was promising big tariffs, broad tariffs, tariffs that were going to happen immediately. But his advisors are looking at these sections they used last time, like 301 and 232, and these laws are not built for big and fast tariffs.

[Willa Rubin]

By this point, Kathleen has left the US Trade Representative's Office. She's a professor at Georgetown. She and other trade lawyers know that tariffs are coming. And they're all kind of wonder, throwing out guesses on like which three digit section he's going to try to use to fit his purposes and justify his tariffs.

[Advertiser 2]

Is it going to be 301? Is it going to be 232? Is it going to be 122?

[Willa Rubin]

Right.

[Advertiser 2]

Very low on that list was AIPA.

[Susan Weber]

Within weeks of taking office, President Trump used a law called ipa, the International Emergency Economic Powers act, to impose a sweeping set of new tariffs on China, on Canada, on Mexico, eventually on countries all around the world. And this caught a lot of trade lawyers off guard because it was an unprecedented way of using iipa.

[Advertiser 2]

We trade lawyers don't think of IIPA as a trade law. This is not something that I teach in my trade class. It's there, but it's not on the short list for how we think about imposition of tariffs in the US Economy.

[Willa Rubin]

Coming up, how Trump's advisors used IEEPA to craft a new legal theory, a theory that might enable the President to basically create whatever tariffs he wants. But how legal is this new legal theory? That's after the break.

[Advertiser 1]

This message comes from Capital One. Your business requires commercial banking solutions that prioritize your long term success with Capital One. Get a full suite of financial products and services tailored to meet your needs today and goals for tomorrow. Learn [e-mail] commercial member FDIC support for NPR and the following message come from LinkedIn Ads. One of the hardest parts about B2B marketing is reaching the right audience. When you want to reach the right professionals, use LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn has grown to a network of over 1 billion professionals. Target buyers by job title, industry, company role, seniority skills, company revenue, all the professionals you need to reach in one place. Get a $100 credit on your next campaign. Just go to LinkedIn.com money terms and conditions apply only on LinkedIn ads.

[Kathleen Claussen]

This message comes from Capella University. Imagine an education that teaches you the skills you need to succeed at Capella University. You'll get a competency based education where you can take what you learn from your courses right to the workplace. They'll teach professional skills that'll help you pursue the goals you hope to achieve and you can apply those skills right away. A different future is closer than you think with Capella University. Learn [e-mail] this message comes from Instacart Instacart is on a mission to have you not leave the couch this basketball season. Between the pre game rituals and the post game interviews, it can be difficult to find time for everything else. Let Instacart take care of your game day snacks or weekly restocks and get delivery in as fast as 30 minutes because they hear it's bad luck to be hungry on game day. Download the Instacart app today and enjoy. $0 delivery fees on your first 3 orders. Service fees apply for 3 orders in 14 days.

[Willa Rubin]

Excludes restaurants okay, the law that President Trump is using to justify his new tariffs is called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act Ayipa.

[Advertiser 2]

It's intended to give the president exceptional, unusual authority to regulate economic transactions in some way when there is an international emergency crisis, when national security so requires.

[Susan Weber]

Congress passed IPA in 1977. It's a tool to help US presidents respond to international crises. The first time it was invoked was in 1979, during the Iran hostage crisis. President Jimmy Carter declared an emergency and used IPA to freeze Iranian assets and property and to stop Iran from using the US Financial system in general.

[Willa Rubin]

Since then, Ayipa has been invoked for dozens of international emergencies, things like apartheid in South Africa in the 80s, or the military government in Myanmar in the late 90s, or the growing nuclear weapons program in North Korea in the 2000s.

[Susan Weber]

When presidents declare an emergency under IPA, the law gives them the power to block foreign transactions. Presidents have historically used IPA to do things like freeze bank accounts, embargo goods, and prohibit Americans from doing business with foreign criminals or hostile governments.

[Advertiser 2]

I think if we took a poll of anybody who's ever heard of IEEPA before, they would say this is a sanctions tool because it was often used for sanctions, for imposing sanctions on bad guys and gals and folks out there and in particular circumstances.

[Susan Weber]

But now Trump is using AIPA to create tariffs. The way he's interpreting aipa, the law gives him vast powers to impose all kinds of tariffs. He just has to declare an emergency. This is a new and unusual way to use aipa. So we asked Kathleen, I mean, does.

[Willa Rubin]

AIPA let Trump do this?

[Advertiser 2]

That is the magic question of the moment. And I can see the arguments on both sides.

[Susan Weber]

We asked Kathleen to walk us through the lawsuits that people have recently filed against the Trump administration. People like Susan Weber, whose community in Northern Montana relies so much on trade across the Canadian border.

[Willa Rubin]

And Kathleen says there are three main ways that plaintiffs like Susan. The people suing the US Government are challenging the tariffs under iepa. The first argument is about what counts as an emergency.

[Susan Weber]

Yeah. To justify his first round of new tariffs, Trump said that the national emergency was illegal immigration in the fentanyl crisis. And to justify his across the board tariffs against dozens of countries around the world, he said the national emergency was our overall trade deficit.

[Willa Rubin]

Now, according to aiba, an emergency is an unusual and extraordinary threat, and that it has to be a threat to our national security, foreign policy, or economy.

[Advertiser 2]

An unusual and extraordinary threat. That's the language. And so some of the plaintiffs are arguing that this is not an unusual and extraordinary threat.

[Susan Weber]

The plaintiffs are arguing that IPA was designed to deal with international crises like the North Korean nuclear weapons program, not the trade deficit or the fentanyl epidemic.

[Advertiser 2]

Is there really an emergency on fentanyl? And then. And then how would tariffs help that problem? Is putting a tariff on those products going to help end that crisis? Right. Is this the right tool for that job?

[Willa Rubin]

But Kathleen says this could be a difficult argument for the plaintiffs to win because they're basically asking the courts to second guess the president on a matter of national security. And when it comes to national security, judges tend to give presidents a lot of leeway.

[Advertiser 2]

The courts tend to be uncomfortable reviewing the president's actions in a space that I think most people would agree is reserved for the executive branch. When the Department of Justice walks in and tries to defend these actions by saying, this is a national security threat to our economy. Most of the time, the courts hear national security and say they cannot go any farther.

[Advertiser 1]

Right.

[Advertiser 2]

They see that as a stumbling block, as a place that they will not enter because that traditionally is really reserved to the President and the expertise of the President maybe exceeds that of what the court has available to it.

[Willa Rubin]

Okay, that argument may be tough for the plaintiffs, but they just need one of their arguments to succeed. And the second way people are challenging these tariffs has to do with what powers the President has under ipa.

[Susan Weber]

The plaintiffs are arguing that IEEPA isn't about tariffs at all. At the time Congress passed IEEPA in 1977, there were already other laws dealing with the President's tariff powers, those three digit statutes like section 301 and 232, whereas IPA itself doesn't even mention tariffs. And until Donald Trump, no president has ever used IEEPA to create tariffs.

[Willa Rubin]

Kathleen says the plaintiffs have a decent argument here. But. But the President might also have a decent argument. His lawyers point out, if you look at what AIPA says, the actual text of the law is pretty broad. AIPA says the President has the power to quote, regulate or prohibit all kinds of transactions, including imports and exports.

[Advertiser 2]

When you hear the words regulate importation, do you think that includes putting a tax on the good at the border? Does that mean that I can charge you $5 to bring in your widget into the United States? Regulate importation? I bet I'd find a good contingent of people who, knowing nothing more than that, could agree, could get behind that interpretation of the language. Regulate importation means I can charge you to bring it in.

[Susan Weber]

Well, when you put it that way, okay, that sounds reasonable, but what about the history of IEPA and the way it's been used and all that?

[Advertiser 2]

Jeff, you gotta be a textualist here. The textualist interpretation, right? And the language of the statute says the President may regulate importation. So surely if he can put an embargo on these goods, then surely he can also charge a fee to bring them in.

[Willa Rubin]

So the Trump administration is arguing that even if IIPA has never been used to impose tariffs, the text of that law is. Doesn't rule out that possibility.

[Susan Weber]

Kathleen says it's hard to predict how courts will rule on this question. Most legal experts say the Trump administration is certainly interpreting IEEPA in a creative way. But even creative interpretations can sometimes succeed at the Supreme Court.

[Willa Rubin]

Now, so far we've been talking about what IEEPA means and what kind of powers does it give the President. But the Third and final way that plaintiffs are challenging the tariffs goes beyond what this law says. It goes back all the way to the Constitution itself where it says that Congress is in charge of tariffs.

[Susan Weber]

The plaintiffs say that the way the President is using IIPA is just too much of a power grab. He's taking these two words in iipa, regulate importation, to kind of give himself a blank check during a crisis to make whatever tariffs. He want to bypass the existing system for creating tariffs using those three digit laws. And the plaintiffs, they're saying that it is fundamentally unconstitutional for Congress to hand the President that much power in so few words.

[Advertiser 2]

There are people who think that this language is too broad and the Supreme Court could say we need to see more direction from Congress in their wording. If that's what they really meant. That's what they got to say more explicitly than regulate importation.

[Willa Rubin]

Yeah. The argument is that the Constitution gave the power of tariffs to Congress and Congress can't just pass on all that power to the President willy nilly that this goes against the basic design of the Constitution. There are limits.

[Susan Weber]

Now, Kathleen says this argument that Congress can't actually give the President that much unconstrained power, it is probably the most audacious challenge to the President's tariffs.

[Willa Rubin]

If you were a judge, like looking at these cases, you're laughing.

[Advertiser 2]

Go on.

[Willa Rubin]

If you were a judge working on one of these cases, I mean, how would you rule?

[Advertiser 2]

Yeah, no, I don't think I would answer this.

[Advertiser 1]

Well.

[Advertiser 2]

That'S just me. I prefer to be able to argue both sides very lawyerly. Yeah, yeah, maybe. I think this is a very tough case.

[Susan Weber]

Kathleen says judges will have a very hard time thinking through all these legal challenges and most likely these questions will end up at the Supreme Court.

[Willa Rubin]

Back in Montana, Susan Weber remembers when Trump announced the tariffs a few months ago. She was hearing from people who were feeling the costs of the President's announcement. And she remembered looking around and wondering, is anyone going to do something about it?

[Jeff Kuo]

For a while there was like, this is so wrong here. It was this thing that was, had such a dramatic effect on our total economy and nobody was saying anything.

[Susan Weber]

In April, Susan decided to do something. She filed one of the first lawsuits in the nation challenging the President's tariffs. She says at first it was about giving a voice to all the people in her district, in her tribe. She was thinking somebody needed to speak up about what the tariffs were putting them through.

[Willa Rubin]

Were you going into this with much hope?

[Jeff Kuo]

You know, not much hope. I was going into it because there was a need. My real name in my language is Matum Sepi. First Strike. That's my name. First Strike. And so I kind of hopefully living up to my name.

[Willa Rubin]

But within a few weeks, more cases started to get filed all around the country. Some of those other lawsuits have been moving faster than Susan's, and so far the people challenging the tariffs have been succeeding.

[Susan Weber]

On May 28, the Court of International Trade in New York declared that IPA does not authorize the President to make these big sweeping tariffs, and the court ordered the administration to stop collecting on them. Another Federal Court in D.C. reached basically the same conclusion, though so far the tariffs are still in effect while the White House appeals these cases.

[Willa Rubin]

If any of these lawsuits succeed, a lot of President Trump's tariffs could disappear. But that doesn't mean the end of tariffs. It would just mean that Trump would have to rely on the slower existing system on those three digit laws like section 301 and section 232. You know, making tariffs the old fashioned way.

[Susan Weber]

If you're new to Planet Money, we have been covering tariffs and trade a lot lately. We've got recent episodes following how businesses are experiencing the tariffs and the uncertainty they create about whether trade deficits matter and what it means for something to be made in China or made in anywhere else. Links to these episodes are in our show Notes.

[Willa Rubin]

This episode was produced by Sam Yellowhorse Kessler and edited by Josh Zhang. It was fact checked by Ciera Juarez and engineered by Harry Paul with an assist from Gilly Moon. Alex Goldmark is our Executive producer.

[Susan Weber]

A special thanks to Andy Morris, Emily Ley, Rebecca Melsky, Josh Robbins, Eva St. Clair, Jonathan St. Ghidor and Monica Tranell. I'm Jeff Guo.

[Willa Rubin]

And I'm Willa Rubin. This is npr. Thanks for listening.

[Advertiser 1]

This message comes from Mint Mobile. If you're tired of spending hundreds on big wireless bills, bogus fees and free perks, Mint Mobile might be right for you with plans starting from 15 bucks a month. Shop plans [e-mail] Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month 5 gigabyte plan required, new customer offer for first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details. This message comes from Jerry. Car insurance shopping used to be a nightmare. Endless forms, hold music and mysteriously rising rates. Thankfully, there's Jerry. Jerry handles the entire insurance shopping process, from comparing quotes side by side to purchasing your policy and even helping you cancel your old coverage all in one app in just minutes. Jerry can check for quotes from up to 50 top insurers. So before you renew your policy, download the Jerry app or head to Jerry AI npr.