The debate over executive powers in taxation has once again come to the fore with the cases of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, recently argued at the Supreme Court. Centered around tariffs imposed during the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), these cases address the vexing question of whether a president can exercise taxation powers absent a clear legislative mandate.
Historically, the issue of taxation without legislative authorization has been fraught with conflict. In the 17th century, King Charles I’s attempts to levy taxes without parliamentary approval led to the Ship Money crisis and ultimately civil war. This historical context underscores the notion that taxation powers should be firmly rooted in legislative action—principles enshrined post-Revolutionary War in the U.S. Constitution.
The Trump tariffs, explained in briefs to the court, including those by Vikram Amar and former congressman Mickey Edwards, frame the question of executive powers within the broader scope of constitutional authorization. The concern is whether the president can unilaterally implement revenue-raising tariffs under the guise of safeguarding economic interests, thereby sidestepping Congress’s intended role.
Further, the IEEPA itself allows for economic regulation in extraordinary situations but does not explicitly mention the words taxation or revenue in its text. As Akhil and Vik Amar point out, allowing this interpretation would risk excessive delegation of legislative powers to the executive—a concept warned against in prior cases like 1935’s Schechter Poultry. Despite these risks, the amicus brief suggests that the current statute’s language should mitigate executive overreach, preventing a scenario where the executive could effectively rewrite tax codes.
The Supreme Court’s handling of these cases will be telling. As the late Justice Robert Jackson eloquently cautioned in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the preservation of free government is contingent on legislative deliberation—a sentiment that remains prescient today.
These cases reiterate the principle that Congress alone, as the voice of the people, should wield the taxation power—a bedrock tenet of representative democracy. You can read a more in-depth discussion on the foundational elements of these arguments in the recurring column by the Amar brothers, “Brothers in Law”.