Tariffs, Emergencies, and Executive Power
- Schulz Trade Law
- Nov 6
- 2 min read
Tariffs, Emergencies, and Executive Power
Michelle Schulz on What the Supreme Court’s Ruling Could Mean for Businesses
Trade attorney Michelle Schulz explains the Supreme Court’s scrutiny of Trump’s tariff authority, why the case could redefine executive power, and how billions in refunds could reshape trade compliance.
The Supreme Court Puts Tariff Power Under the Microscope
Following the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on President Trump’s tariffs, international trade attorney Michelle Schulz, founder of Schulz Trade Law, shared her insights on WJR Radio Detroit. She noted that justices across the spectrum pressed both sides on the limits of executive authority.
“They had a lot of tough questions for the U.S. government about whether the President really has this authority to do something on his own as broad as applying taxes,” Schulz said. “They will consider whether this is, in fact, an emergency and also if this is just too broad, because the President has asserted that there is an extraordinary threat due to our trade deficit.”
Schulz observed that the justices appeared skeptical that a trade imbalance alone could qualify as an emergency. “It’s hard to pin down where the exact threat is,” she said.
History and Precedent: Has This Ever Been Done Before?
The Court’s questioning frequently turned to history—specifically whether any prior president had used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs. Schulz, who has practiced trade law for over two decades, said she had never seen it used this way.
“The IEEPA is typically used when we have something dangerous that we don’t want to go out of the country, like sanctions or export controls,” she explained. “Not for leverage in trade agreements and tariffs.”
She added that the government’s only historical example—President Nixon’s temporary 10% tariff in the 1970s—was narrow and short-lived.
“That was very limited,” she said. “Here we have an emergency act being used to allow unlimited tariffs. We don’t have any precedent for this.”
Possible Outcomes: Refunds, Administrative Chaos, and Future Limits
If the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs, Schulz expects a long, complex refund process.
“It would be an administrative burden on both customs and importers that is astronomical,” she said. “It probably will be a mess—but that doesn’t change whether the law actually covers tariffs or not.”
At the same time, Schulz pointed out that the ruling could reshape presidential flexibility during future global crises.
“It could limit flexibility,” she acknowledged, “but presidents will still have plenty of avenues to act—through export controls, national security laws, and unfair trade investigations under the Commerce Department or the U.S. Trade Representative.”
Her bottom line:
“It’s almost impossible to say one administration is overreaching when both have claimed unlimited authority to tax U.S. importers. This case may finally define where that line is.”
The Supreme Court’s decision will affect not only Washington’s trade policy—but also how every importer plans, prices, and reports their goods.
If your business is navigating tariffs or preparing for potential refunds, contact Schulz Trade Law today for guidance on compliance strategy, refund processes, and long-term trade planning.
Trade on, but trade informed!
Subscribe to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.
Comments