The Supreme Court is set to hear an appeal on President Trump’s disputed tariffs, with a 1981 case involving Justice William Rehnquist and his law clerk John Roberts providing key legal precedent. This historical decision, made during the Iranian hostage crisis, is now central to debates over presidential power in imposing tariffs under national emergency authorities.
The current legal battle stems from Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico, and China, claiming national security threats from trade deficits and drug trafficking. Most lower courts have ruled against the administration, finding that IEEPA does not authorize such broad tariff powers, but a dissenting opinion by Judge Richard Taranto of the Federal Circuit has embraced the 1981 Dames & Moore v. Regan case as support for Trump’s position.
In Dames & Moore, the Supreme Court upheld President Jimmy Carter’s use of frozen Iranian assets as a “bargaining chip” to secure the release of American hostages, with Rehnquist writing the opinion that endorsed IEEPA’s flexibility in foreign affairs. John Roberts, then a 26-year-old law clerk, assisted Rehnquist during the rushed decision-making process, which involved a “mad scramble” to issue the ruling before a deadline.
The historical context reveals parallels and differences: both cases involve IEEPA and executive action in crises, but Dames & Moore dealt with asset freezes, not tariffs. Taranto’s dissent argues that the precedent shows “broad authority” for the president, while challengers contend it emphasizes strict adherence to congressional intent, not expansion of power.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming hearing, scheduled for next week, will examine whether Trump’s tariffs exceed IEEPA’s scope, with implications for presidential authority and international trade. Legal experts note that the court may consider the “major questions doctrine,” requiring clear congressional approval for economically significant actions.
Background on the 1981 case highlights the intense pressure on the justices, with Rehnquist falling ill and Roberts balancing clerkship duties with bar exam preparation. The decision was narrowly tailored, avoiding broad guidelines, which now fuels debate over its applicability to modern tariffs.
If the court sides with Trump, it could reinforce executive power in trade policy, but a ruling against may curb such actions, affecting global economic relations and domestic prices. The outcome will also test Chief Justice Roberts’ role in navigating contentious issues, given his personal connection to the precedent.
As the hearing approaches, both sides are marshaling arguments, with the administration relying on Taranto’s analysis and opponents citing economic experts who dispute the existence of a true emergency. The decision could set a landmark precedent for future presidents.