Tag: emergency powers

On May 28, 2025, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) delivered a landmark ruling invalidating the broad “Liberation Day” tariffs that President Donald J. Trump had imposed without congressional approval. The court held that the president “exceeded any authority … to regulate importation by means of tariffs” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), concluding that “Because of the Constitution’s express allocation of the tariff power to Congress … we do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President.” This decision strikes at the core of longstanding tensions over separation of powers, national emergency authorities, and the evolving scope of executive discretion in U.S. trade policy.

On May 30, 2025, a federal appeals court delivered a dramatic reprieve to President Trump’s tariffs, temporarily reinstating duties that a lower court had struck down as exceeding presidential authority. Originally imposed on April 2, 2025, under broad proclamations of “national emergencies,” these tariffs ranged from 10 percent on Chinese imports to 25 percent on select Mexican and Canadian goods. The underlying legal conflict spotlights deep tensions between executive power and judicial oversight, raising fundamental questions about separation of powers in trade policy.

The Limits of Executive Power: On 28 May 2025, Elon Musk announced his departure as a special advisor on government efficiency from the Trump White House, a role colloquially dubbed “Doge,” after publicly criticizing the administration’s flagship tax-and-spending legislation, officially known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” This U-turn—following a year in which Musk invested over $200 million in Trump’s 2024 campaign and wielded influence across social media—raises profound questions about the boundaries of advisory roles within the executive branch, the interplay between private sector loyalties and public service, and the robustness of legal checks on emergency executive authority.

The United States is currently grappling with a series of infectious disease outbreaks, including measles, norovirus, mpox (formerly known as monkeypox), and avian influenza. These outbreaks have raised significant legal, constitutional, and policy questions regarding public health responses, individual rights, and governmental authority. The legal framework governing public health responses in the U.S. is complex, involving federal, state, and local authorities. The balance between individual liberties and the collective good becomes particularly contentious during outbreaks, where measures such as quarantines, mandatory vaccinations, and travel restrictions may be implemented.

In 2025, the United States found itself at a crossroads in economic governance and constitutional authority. Following President Donald Trump’s re-election, the administration reinvigorated its protectionist trade agenda, dramatically escalating tariffs on a wide array of imports. These tariffs, extending beyond specific industries to broad sectors of consumer goods, were implemented under emergency powers justified by claims of national security and economic self-defense.