Policy Integrity filed amicus briefs in Supreme Court and Federal Circuit litigation over President Trump’s worldwide tariffs. The court decisions in both cases mirrored our articulation of the major questions doctrine and adopted key arguments that we raised.
In the Supreme Court’s opinion finding that these tariffs exceeded the executive power authorized by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the Court follows the three-factor framework for the major questions doctrine that we laid out in our amicus brief and that we explained followed naturally from Court precedent. Namely, the Court examined the breadth, history, and economic and political significance of the tariffs. The Court’s analysis of the doctrine in this way is important, because many lower courts and litigants have adopted expansive versions of the doctrine that could lead to its overly broad application. We have explained in multiple settings that all of the Court’s major questions decisions conform to a clear, structured analysis that litigants and courts should follow. The Court’s opinion does just that. And our brief had the formulation that was closest to the one the Court applied.
The Supreme Court’s opinion also supports the application of the major questions doctrine as an aid in finding the best reading of a statute, rather than a rule limiting executive power even where a statute is best read to confer it. We argued for this application of the major questions doctrine in our brief and were the only party or amicus to do so. We also argued against an exception to the major questions doctrine for foreign affairs—and the Court similarly agreed. Justice Gorsuch’s arguments against this exception in his concurrence closely align with our own.
Prior to the Supreme Court decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision finding that these tariffs exceed Presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In concluding that the major questions doctrine applies to the challenged tariffs, the court adopted an approach that also closely follows our brief, analyzing the history, breadth, and economic and political significance of the President’s actions. The court rejected a more expansive version of the major questions doctrine, advocated by other parties, that would apply to any action of great economic and political significance. The court also concluded, in line with our brief, that the major questions doctrine applies to the President.