To recap: Trump justified his authority to impose three categories of tariffs without congressional approval on the basis of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA): (1) the global 10 percent tariff imposed on all 180+ foreign countries, (2) the “liberation day” retaliatory tariffs keyed to the size of our manufacturing trade deficits with some 90 countries; and (3) tariffs specifically imposed on China, Mexico, and Canada as leverage to deal with the fentanyl crisis. In late May, a three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade and a federal judge in D.C. (Rudolph Contreras) both ruled that IEEPA did not give Trump the authority for the first two categories, and that he had not adequately justified the third category of tariffs by sufficiently connecting them to fentanyl trafficking. The Court of International Trade entered an injunction, which the Federal Circuit (which hears appeals from that court) then stayed while the executive branch appealed, and Judge Contreras stayed his own ruling while the executive branch appealed to the D.C. Circuit. As a result, neither order will become effective unless and until one of two things happens: the appeals courts hear the full appeal and decide the case against Trump (which in a normal case could easily take another year, although the appeals are now being heard on an expedited track) or the Supreme Court steps in before the appeals courts rule.
On a case of such nationwide importance, with such unsettling effects on business, it would be prudent for the Court to act now. But the justices, winding down their term with just ten cases remaining after a six-decision day today, are doubtless weary of the endless requests for emergency action. A petition was filed with the Court for certiorari before judgment, which is the exception to the usual rule but one that appears with some frequency. As SCOTUSBlog noted, “the challengers, Learning Resources and hand2mind, are small family-owned businesses that make and sell ‘hands-on educational toys and products for children.’ They ‘outsource most manufacturing to factories in other countries,’ including in Asia. The companies say that paying the tariffs in 2025 will cost them $100 million, ‘compared with just $2.3 million in 2024—a 44-fold increase.’” They’re appealing from the D.C. Circuit case, and asked the Court to expedite consideration of their petition — given that it often takes at least 90 days just for the Court to get around to deciding whether to take a case. The Trump administration argued against expediting the petition stage, noting that the case is already being expedited in the D.C. Circuit, that it’s unusual for a party who won in the district court to be asking for review without having lost at any stage of the case, and that the administration is challenging whether the case belonged in district court at all (it arguably should have been with the other case in the Court of International Trade).
International students have been coming to America to study since before the U.S. was established. Alexander Hamilton immigrated in 1772 seeking to learn. He was among the first of many international students who took advantage of their educational opportunities in America to bring democracy and market-based economies to the world. Hamilton served at the Battle of Yorktown, became a member of George Washington’s first cabinet, wrote 51 of the 85 articles in the Federalist Papers, and was a principal architect of what became the U.S.
America must acknowledge the economic contributions of international students (educational services were the seventh-largest U.S. service export in 2023, totaling $50.2 billion) as well as their use in extending American values across the globe.
After graduation, many top international students can extend their stays temporarily to work in their fields of study, boosting American companies. This opportunity comes through the Optional Practical Training program—which would end if Mr. Trump’s nominee for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Joseph Edlow, has his way. Such a move would threaten the ability to attract top international students and would jeopardize a talent pipeline for American business.
My GMU Econ colleague Bryan Caplan reflects on libertarians’ – including his own – sincerity.
The broader question raised by this case is whether federal rulemaking has abandoned the core principles of the U.S. system. Historically, agencies were expected to demonstrate a compelling need for regulation backed by real-world data. Now, it seems, the burden is being flipped: Unless the regulated party can prove the rule is unnecessary, the rule stands.
In this European-style approach to regulation, which I am familiar with, the default control lies in the hands of bureaucrats who are simply presumed to know best. This is what the U.S. system was designed to avoid.
