The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Challenging Trump's Tariffs Under the Major Question Doctrine
Georgetown law Prof. Jennifer Hillman explains why Trump's tariffs are vulnerable to challenge on this basis.

Back in February, I explained why Trump's planned use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to wage a massive trade war against Canada and Mexico is vulnerable to challenge under the nondelegation and major questions doctrines. Georgetown law Prof. Jennifer Hillman has an excellent Lawfare article laying out the major questions argument against Trump's IEEPA tariffs in greater depth and detail:
The U.S. Supreme Court's articulation of the major questions doctrine may have created insurmountable hurdles to the president's desire to use IEEPA as the legal basis for sweeping tariffs. Congress frequently delegates authority to the executive branch to regulate particular aspects of society, but in a number of recent decisions, the Supreme Court has declared that for an agency to decide an issue of major national significance, its action must be supported by clear congressional authorization….
The major questions doctrine entails that the Court "expect[s] Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast 'economic and political significance'," looking at the "the history and the breadth of the authority that [the Executive Branch agency] has asserted." In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the Court expressed skepticism when agencies claim to have discovered in a long-extant statute "an unheralded power to regulate 'a significant portion of the American economy'…."
There can be no doubt that using IEEPA to impose broad tariffs is a major question. It falls squarely within the Supreme Court's notion of a "novel" use of an "unheralded" power given that no other president has used IEEPA in its nearly 50-year history to impose tariffs. The decision to impose the new tariffs on the United States's three largest trading partners constitutes a "transformative power expansion" and carries "vast economic and political significance" as it has significant breadth, national impact, and an effect on large segments of the economy. In 2024, imports from Canada, China, and Mexico exceeded $1.3 trillion. U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico totaled $680 billion, and trade among the three USMCA parties supports over 17 million jobs. Chinese imports of goods in 2024 were $439 billion, and additional tariffs on China will impact smartphones, computers, furniture, shoes, toys, food, and more. The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that these tariffs collectively are the "largest tax increase in at least a generation" and will cost the typical U.S. household more than $1,200 a year. Moreover, much of the burden of paying the tariffs will fall on lower- and middle-income households. Trade historian Douglas Irwin has noted that these IEEPA tariffs "would constitute a historic event in the annals of U.S. trade policy."
Applying the major questions doctrine to IEEPA also shows that Congress did not "clearly authorize" the president to impose broad-based tariffs. IEEPA sets forth a wide array of actions that the president can take following the formal declaration of a national emergency, including the power to "regulate … importation or exportation" of any property in which a foreign government or foreign national has any interest. While the power to regulate importation can be read to include the imposition of tariffs, an argument can be made that this does not constitute a sufficiently explicit congressional authorization. If Congress clearly intended to delegate its tariff power, it would have used tariff terms ("tariffs," "duties," or "taxes") and called for a tariff-related process to establish the factual predicate for and the appropriate level of such duties. This is not the case with IEEPA.
As Hillman notes, Trump's abuse of the IEEPA is not limited to imposing tariffs against Canada, China, and Mexico. He also intends to use it to impose a variety of other massive tariffs, as well. Hillman makes several other good points, as well. Anyone interested in this extremely important issue should read the whole thing.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is just more lawfare by Trump-haters.
Yawn
More Grrrrrrrrrrrrr
Well it is very likely lower court judges will be intrigued. But they essentially do not recognize any limits in the exercise of the judicial power in furtherance of their insurrection. And they have zero respect for Executive branch authority. Ultimately, though, if and when adults look at this new theory, they might wonder if a doctrine, applicable in the context of agency action, can be applied to the President and the President's conduct in matters involving foreign relations with political implications outside any judicial competence. Then this garbage, if it gets that far, will crash and burn.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/217526/revenues-from-customs-duty-and-forecast-in-the-us/
US Tariff revenue revenue was reasonably semi flat from 2000 to 2016 ranging form 20b to 35B, then in 2017, then grew
2018 $41b trump
2019 $71b trump
2020 $69b trump
2021 $80b biden
2022 $100B biden
2023 $80b Biden
2024 $97b biden
2025 $ 76b trump (projected)
2026 $80b trump (projected)
Why no complaints when the Biden administration increased tariffs by another 15%-30% over the first trump administration?
There were
Why not challenge them under "there isn't actually any sort of emergency", instead of continuing to try to invent a new constitutional rule?
Agree that "there isn't actually any sort of emergency" is the better argument, along with "basically, everything they say is patent reality-denying bullshit", but might as well make this argument too.
Although the "major questions" doctrine seems to have been invented to simply allow the court to use it to overrule any action by the executive branch that they disagree with. How they address this line of argument will show whether they will apply it even-handedly. Assuming, of course, that the "conservatives" on the court are in favor of the tariffs, which is hardly a given.
I've never thought the major questions doctrine was any kind of doctrine at all. But if there is any there there, it certainly applies here. I guess we'll see if the doctrine's advocates are serious about it or just opportunistic.
Calling to apply the so-called major questions doctrine is similar to the "reasonableness doctrine of the Israeli Supreme Court. In this era kicking a question to the Congress is effectively eliminating the matter from further action.
That comment has nothing to do with the wisdom or efficacy of applying the tariffs in question.
There are currently five pending challenges on that ground. See https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/litigation-to-enjoin-the-national-emergency-declaration-an-overview-of-alleged-injuries-and-related-proof-issues/
I think they're unlikely to succeed in the long run, speaking as a non-expert having a knee-jerk reaction. Congress expressly grants the President broad powers to declare emergencies and can vote to end them. That makes it almost certainly non-justiciable.
In practice they've rarely done so. Originally the President wasn't allowed to veto Congress's decision to end an emergency but SCOTUS found this "legislative veto" unconstitutional. Even so, it's happened in living memory, and I don't think the courts will be persuaded that they can take the role Congress reserved for itself.
I'm not aware of a national emergency declaration ever being successfully challenged, but actions under them have certainly been.
On one hand, Trump has enough truly incompetent lawyers that he may manage to lose in the lower courts and get tangled up in a slap fight over it. On the other hand, an injunction against an emergency declaration may be the straw the breaks the camel's back and incites SCOTUS to limit them explicitly.
I personally think it would be a bad idea for courts to entertain such challenges, but appropriate to consider the validity of the emergency as a factor when acts are challenged. If Trump declares an emergency because he just got around to watching Season 8 of Game of Thrones, the courts shouldn't be able to cancel it but should be able to block any orders he gives under it.
An argument to empower the Court with case-by-case discretion over both legislative policy, and executive action, seems inefficient, awkward, and peculiar.
Didn't the latest continuing resolution contain language that basically green-lighted the administration to impose whatever tariffs they wanted?
I didn't read through all of it myself, so if someone here has I'd be interested in reading their analysis of how this might apply to the "Major Questions" doctrine.
A related joint resolution, yes -- that was the "a day is not a day" stuff we kicked around a couple of weeks ago. I can't see how there's a lot of room to hide in the MQD when the Dems themselves straightforwardly acknowledged Trump would have the power to impose tariffs in their sky is falling narrative:
I couldn't stop so I swerved to the Right.... (HT W. Cochran)
so this is how it used to be, when we had POTUS's who did shit, some of it bad (GHWB Tax Increases, Clinton, besides telling a White Lie so as not to humiliate Hillary, not sure what, "W" where do I begin?, the Medicare Drug Scam, 20 years of mangled Veterans, Barry Osama was actually an improvement with his Bullshit Osama-Care,
and then Sleepy Joe, who's major accomplishment was not shitting himself in public.
If the Tariffs don't work? guess what, "47" can end them with a stroke of his EE pen
or maybe re-instate them the next day.
Frank
Or you could just look at the actual statue and see that there is no " unusual and extraordinary threat".
"The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose.
Good Golly Molly, might want to check that 28.8 Baud (is that how you say it? "Baud") modem, seems you're a little behind
45/47 declared a "National Emergency" January 22, you know, sort of like how Sleepy Joe ended the Covid "National Emergency" back in 2023,
POTUS's can just do that
so how's that 28.8 Modum? does it still make that squeaking and squawking sound? (I loved that)
Frank
Ah, memories.
Major question is a vibes check. Sure, you should throw it in there - that's the law at the moment, just in case.
But in the end it won't change the merits evaluation. It'll just add a bit of text to the opinion, either another point in their favor, or a brief dismissal.
Major questions doctrine is fine, as it stops weasels from expanding their power at their whim into areas not envisioned by the legislators.
You may say so what, it's the thought that counts, and creativity was envisioned.
All I have to say is enjoy living in that world. For those keeping score, this is one upsmanship from Biden before him, and Trump before him.
People on this very web site warned Republicans under Trump v1, and sure enough, when power changed hands...Nobody will learn. Sigh
Mr, bothsides has really become a scold.
I can't persuade people to vote for my policies so i am going to try to convice some unelected bureaucrats to reverse the overwhelming will of the electorate.
Just more lawfare that will damage the credibility of the law profession and the courts.
Denying that judicial review or the Constitution exists is becoming a more and more common thing amongst the less thinky MAGA populists.
Yeah, Trump doing that is pretty bad!
Overwhelming?
Yeah, the unelected bureaucrats at DOGE have got to go. They are indeed reversing the overwhelming will of the electorate that voted for Congress, engaging in petty lawfare, and even trash-talking the judges duly appointed and confirmed by Americans' representatives.
dwb68 — You know, the overwhelming will of the electorate on the tariff question is getting polled specifically and continuously. The results show Trump far underwater every time.
I think this is a weak argument.
The major questions doctrine addresses application of federal law to completely new areas not previously thought to have been covered by the law. But this is not a new area. Congress gave President the authority to set tarriffs. This is a tarriff. It’s squarely within the clear meaning of the statute’s delegation authority and poses no new question, let alone a major one.
I think trying to apply the major questions doctrine here will meet the same fate as efforts to claim that FDA regulation of abortificients is prohibited by the major questions doctrine. There are plausible arguments to be made against the current FDA regulatory regime, but the major questions doctrine certainly isn’t one of them. As courts who have addressed the question have noted, the FD&C act gives the FDA authority to regulate drugs; abortifacients are drugs. The fact that they may be controversial drugs is completely irrelevant; what matters is that they are the kind of thing Congress gave the FDA authority to regulate. If Congress wants to address their controversial nature by takin back some of the general grant authority over drugs generally and craft a specific policy to address abortifacients, it of course can do so. But since it hasn’t the mere fact that they are an especially controversial kind of drug does not give federal courts authority courts do not otherwise have.
I think exactly the same applies here. These may be especially controversial tariffs. I’m no fan of the policy behind them. But they are tariffs. The statute gives the President authority to set tariffs, these are plain old ordinary tariffs, and that’s that.
A second issue, which I don’t think the Court need even reach, is that I don’t think doctrines like the non-delegation doctrine or major questions doctrine apply at all to matters of war, peace, and foreign affairs. For example, the Constitution gives Congress and not the President the power to repel invasions. But Congress delegated this power to the President, among others, in its entirety very early in this Country’s history. While I’ve argued that this doesn’t give the President unilateral authority to say what an invasion is, that limitation has no relevance here. There is absolutely no question that these tariffs, wise policy or not, really are tariffs. The President is not taking something completely new and saying it’s a tariff. There is no novel legal theory here. The tariffs the President has enacted are no different from many our country has had in the past, wise policy or not.
Um, the modern MQD literally originated from an attempt by the FDA to regulate something based on "this is a drug; Congress gave the FDA power to regualte drugs; therefore, the FDA can regulate this."
If you’re referring to FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co, the basic holding was that the FDA couldn’t regulate it because Congress had set up a distinct statutory scheme and created a distinct agency to regulate it, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. That’s a much more concrete rule of statutory construction than what became the MQD.
I think there’s an argument that this narrower version applies to abortifacients, in that the Comstock Act creates a separate statutory scheme for abortifacients, thereby stripping the FDA of authority to regulate them. The Comstock Act was clearly moribund between Roe and Dobbs, and opponents of abortion have generally argued that Dobbs brought bacl to life. But opponents of abortion in cases challenging FDA actions have not considered a Comstock Act based argument to be an MQD argument. And so far it hasn’t fared very well. In the West Virginia GenBioPro case, the district judge did not consider the Comstock Act at all in his final opinion.
I'm not willing to give credibility to the MQD, or the non-delegation doctrine either.
Can a policy be challenged on the basis of extreme stupidity? I guess not, at least in court. Too bad, but there it is. So let's just live with higher car prices, MAGA fans, shall we?
Somin on DACA....
It's all good. Expanded programs by executive fiat? Sure!
Somin in 2022....
"Biden should expand this major program that massively expands immigration to the United States that never had explicit Congressional authorization"
Somin in 2025...
Major changes by the executive branch? Well, that may fall to non-delegation issues.
Well...see what happens.....
Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton supported tariffs to help the United States encourage the USA to become financially independent of the need to rely on foreign sources.
Trump seems to agree with them. Trump is no Hamilton or Madison, but if it was good enough for Hamilton and Madison, it's good enough for me.
The issue is not tariffs, but whether Trump is following the congressionally passed rules on them adequately.
If the issue isn't about tariffs then whatever congress has something to say about some other issue is irrelevant.
Your original comment discussed the general value of tariffs for certain ends.
That isn't the ultimate issue here. It is if Trump is applying congressional legislation properly.
That is the "major questions doctrine" issue.
Generally speaking...yes.
Tariff law is interesting, but a key switch was made when Congress passed the Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934. It authorized the President to make changes to Tariff rates.
Originally, the issue was Congress doesn't move fast enough for reciprocal tariffs. If Country A lowers their tariff rates (or raises them) against the US, the President (if he had the authority) could immediately set them to match. This was good for trade relations.
By contrast, if Country A lowered their tariff rates, then had to wait for 3 months (or however long it took to get through Congress) for Congress to...maybe...lower the tariff rates to match...well, it didn't make sense. Country A would be like "what's going on?"...and might hike the tariff rates back up, because Congress was too slow.
In 1790, the US was a third-rate country with fledgling industries. In 2025, not so much. Moreover, trade was not as easy as today. Your comparison is inapt.
Touche!
if it was good enough for Hamilton and Madison, it's good enough for me.
Nothing like 18th century cures, is there?
You may not know this, but economics, including the effects of tariffs, has been studies extensively since then. One conclusion is that tariffs are generally a very bad idea.
1. Tariffs are generally stupid, and Krasnov's belief that trade imbalances mean the US is being ripped off is both ignorant and stupud as indeed is anyone who agrees with him about this.
2. There is no emergency.
I don't know who Krasnov is, but it sounds like an Eastern European name. A Trade imbalance doesn't mean the USA is being ripped off, but it does mean we should do something about it.
The notion that anybody who disagrees with you is ignorant and stupid is ridiculous. So then you probably think Hamilton and Madison were ignorant and stupid
Trade balances mean nothing of the sort.
Country A sells $1B of spoons to Country B.
Country B sells $1B of knives to Country C.
Country C sells $1B of forks to Country A.
They've all got trade deficits and credits with each other. Trade deficits with single countries in a world full of trading partners are a meaningless fiction.
Overall trade deficits merely measure foreign investment, and Trump's an ignoramus for thinking he can raise foreign investments while lowering trade deficits, since they are the same value with opposite signs.
Yup.
We know far more about economics than Hamilton and Madison.
It is an actual fact that a trade deficit does not mean that we're being ripped off, and nor does it mean that trade deals were badly negotiated, and to be unaware of the fact is to be ignorant and to assert the contrary is to be stupid. Tnese are not matters of opinion. Krasnov - my preferred name for Dear Leader (and I think you were being disingenuous) is ignorant of macroeconomics.
Mercantilism was still in vogue in the late 18th century. Mercantilist thinking is still quite popular with hoi polloi, but there aren't a whole lot of actual economists who subscribe to it.
hoi polloi
Kudos for the absence of redundancy 🙂
While the power to regulate importation can be read to include the imposition of tariffs, an argument can be made that this does not constitute a sufficiently explicit congressional authorization.
While that argument COULD be made, it is hardly compelling. Presidents have used the IEEPA to ban imports entirely. Is it plausible that Congress, by using the word "regulate", meant to allow the President to ban an import but not to tax it? Exactly what type of "regulation" of an import would the author find permissible?
Ok, so you would never say this Presidential move is invulnerable so vulnerable means nothing to a moral except "hey , buddy you aren't a lawyer" --- but I knew that.
An interesting issue is whether the MQD applies to the President. Imo, it does. But courts have split on this issue.
Why wouldn't it? The MQD is a canon of statutory interpretation, so it applies to the law, not the party involved in acting on the law.
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., said to be the foundational case of the Major Questions Doctrine, actually stands for a much lesser proposition. Congress had assigned regulation of tobacco to a different agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The. Ourt held that because Congress had created a specific statutory scheme for tobacco and assigned its regulation to a different agency, it could not have intended for the FDA to cover it under the broader term “drug.” So the case arguably stands only for the very traditional rule of statutory construction that a specific statute on a topic is to be followed over a general one.
That’s a much narrower and more objectively discernable proposition than telling Congress that it has to be specific about subjects that, in the Court’s standardless judgment, are “major.”
You've misunderstood the Court's reasoning, and also that is not in fact a "much lesser proposition." That is the same proposition. The text of the FDCA was absolutely broad enough to cover tobacco/nicotine. Literally nobody disagreed that nicotine is a drug, and cigarettes a delivery mechanism, under the actual statutory definitions of those terms. But the Court held that applying these definitions required a clearer statement from Congress because banning tobacco is a MQ.
The other statutes — enacted many decades after the FDCA — were further evidence of Congressional intent, but did not amend the FDCA's definitions.
I understand that’s the take a subsequent majority of the Court had on it. I’m just saying that that take is not a necessary take. You can get the result by applying simple, ordinary rules of statutory construction. Statutes are to be read as whole. When components appear to be inconsistent, then statutes on the specific subject control over more general ones, and later statutes control over earlier ones. A different majority could take that as the essential holding and the major questions language as being additional explanation rather than an essential part of the decision.
You don’t need an entire new doctrine to say that tobacco regulation is outside the FDA’s bailiwick. Congress enacted an entire statutory scheme to regulate tobacco specifically and assigned a different agency responsibility to regulate it. THAT, and not some novel doctrine, explains why it didn’t intend the FDA to have that authority under an older, much more general statute.
A similar argument could be made for the Comstock Act. Congress enacted a separate statutory scheme to regulate abortificients specifically; by doing so it signalled that the separate statutory scheme and not the general FD&C act applies. The situation is unusual because Roe eliminated the separate statutory scheme, thereby rendering the FD&C act the only relevant regulatory scheme while Roe was in effect.
If one buys the argument that Dobbs had the effect of resurrecting the Comstock Act, then there is again a separate, more specific statutory scheme and the argument that its regulation of abortifacients specifically should control over the FD&C Act’s regulation of drugs more generally becomes a more plausible argument.
But you don’t need a major questions doctrine to get there, just as you didn’t need a major questions doctrine to get the B&W Tobacco result. It’s just an ordinary traditional statutory construction argument.
“Congress passed a different statute with its own statutory scheme to regulate that subject specifically, and imposed different, specific policy rules in doing so” is a much more objective, neutral, traditional statutory-construction argument to explain why a general ststute doesn’t let an agency regulate that subject under its general policy rules than a new judge-made argument that agencies don’t have authority to regulate controversial or important subjects without specific statutory guidance. It makes the Court look much more like it is practicing law. The other doctrine sometimes makes it look more like the Justices are practicing politics while the politicians and the electorate slowly get stoned.
1) Whether you think they "need" a MQD or not, Brown & Williamson used it.
2) The FDCA by its text applies to nicotine, and the FDCA predates all the other laws you're talking about. For your reasoning to hold, you still need an argument why the FDA didn't have the authority to ban tobacco before those laws. And then you also need an argument that those laws repealed the FDCA even though they didn't say so and repeal by implication is disfavored.
Tariffs aren't novel. But income taxes, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the enormous Administrative State with its panoply of extra-Constitutional administrative courts and ties to NGOs, now those truly ARE novel. I'd love to have the Court weigh in on the Constitutionally of all of this cruft.
A major discovery from DaveM—perpetual novelty. Put in a few bars of theremin music and you enter the Twilight Zone.
Amen!
The law at question here is novel, by your 'anything that happened since the 1780s' definition of novel.
May I refer you to the 16th Amendment? It’s well over 100 years old at this point.
The purpose of legislatures is to respond to changing circumstances by doing novel things Novelty is a legislature’s business. It’s not the Executive Branch’s and it’s not the Judiciary’s to enjoin or refuse to execute an act of Congress merely because it’s novel. The whole point of having a Congress is to respond to new circumstances with new policies and programs.
The Constitution contains a spending clause that permits Congress to tax and spend money for the general welfare of the United States. If you don’t like the fact that Congress now provides much more taxation and much more spending with more administrative bureaucracy to administer the programs than before, your remedy lies with Congress, and Congress only. Not the Courts, not the President, not anyone else.
There’s nothing the slightest bit unconstitutional about Congress choosing to use its taxing and spending power to tax and spend more as opposed to taxing and spending less.
And the fact that you don’t like it gives you no warrant to overthrow our constitutional Republic in order to get rid of things the Constitution assigned Congress the exclusive power to decide about, and Congress does not want to get rid of. This country does not take, or take to, dictation well at all.
It appears to me that a majority of voters approved this message through the election. When will these losers let the change in policy playout? We are 36 trillion in debt and the TDS is so thick with these activist you could not cut it with a knife. Constantly seeking any crack they can to tie up policy decision and derail what was approved by a majority of the voting public.
Populism justifies the means.
The song of the authoritarian. It's playing louder and louder here at VC.
Congress has not enacted these changes. And yes, a lot of them are holed up in the Senate.
Our framers provided for divided government, including staggered elections for the Senate, in no small part specifically to prevent a single election from deciding everything.
Literally, a bare plurality (not a majority) of voters elected a strong-man authoritarian Caudillo Daddy-figure, with the least knowledge, integrity, judgement, and governing capabilities of any president any of us have ever known.
Separately, repeated polling since the inauguration reveals consistent strong-majority disapproval of Trump's randomly flailing tariff proclamations and actions—something the stock market has also consistently reflected.
Also, since populist approval seems so important to you, you may want to check out Trump's approval numbers, with the an easily discernable trend shown in the landing page of poll aggregators:
https://www.realclearpolling.com/ (the conservative one)
https://polls.votehub.com/ (the liberal one)
(btw, they're both methodologically sound and track each other fairly well, with RCP's weighting process resulting in quicker bounces, while VoteHub's smooths out the trend lines a little more.)
Finally, the true meaning of Trump Derangement Syndrome differs from your understanding, as as your own derangement certainly seems to provide a strong example of the typical TDS angry, fearful, fevered viral infectiousness.
A majority of voters (who voted) voted for someone other than Trump.