The Supreme Court’s “Trillion-Dollar Test”
- Schulz Trade Law
- Nov 6
- 2 min read
The Supreme Court’s “Trillion-Dollar Test”
Michelle Schulz on Tariffs, Emergencies, and Executive Power
As the Supreme Court weighs whether President Trump overstepped his authority with sweeping tariffs, trade attorney Michelle Schulz explains why the stakes reach from Wall Street to Main Street.
The “Emergency” at the Heart of the Case
During her interview with KNX Radio Los Angeles, international trade attorney Michelle Schulz explained that the Supreme Court is examining whether President Trump legally invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs without congressional approval.
“That was the initial launch of the IEEPA tariffs,” Schulz said. “It was aimed at China, Mexico, and Canada for the fentanyl crisis—which, I don’t know if that’s considered an emergency or not.”
What began as a narrow policy has since expanded.
“It then expanded in April to the reciprocal tariffs—those country-by-country tariffs that range all the way from 10% to 50% and continue to be arbitrarily assessed depending on how the executive branch feels about that country.”
A Question of History and Legitimacy
Schulz emphasized that this use of IEEPA has no real precedent in modern trade law.
“Historically, the IEEPA has not been used for this purpose,” she said. “The government argued that President Nixon achieved a 10% tariff under the Trading with the Enemy Act back in the 70s—but that’s not the same thing. That was limited, and that was a long time ago.”
The conservative justices, Schulz noted, appeared skeptical that a years-long trade policy could qualify as an “emergency.” The ruling could determine whether future presidents retain unilateral power to impose tariffs—or whether Congress must reassert its constitutional authority over trade.
Economic Fallout and Possible Refunds
If the Court rules against the administration, Schulz said the results could be both chaotic and beneficial. “
It could be chaos, but it’s beneficial for importers,” she explained. “U.S. companies are losing money every day because they’re the ones responsible for paying the tariffs. They’ve lost a lot, so if this comes out in favor of the plaintiffs, it could mean a lot of refunds for importers.”
Those refunds could translate into a short-term boost for businesses and the stock market. As Schulz put it, “
The government has collected a lot of taxes through these tariffs—but it’s the companies in the U.S. that are primarily paying those. So we’re taxing ourselves.”
Whether the Supreme Court reins in or reaffirms presidential trade power, the implications will be sweeping.
If your company has been affected by recent tariffs—or may be eligible for refunds—contact Schulz Trade Law today to assess your exposure, prepare refund claims, and develop strategies for navigating future trade actions.
Trade on, but trade informed!
Subscribe to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.
Comments