Following today’s Supreme Court oral arguments in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Cato Legal Fellow Brent Skorup is available to discuss the case’s implications for executive power and trade policy.

Skorup says, “Today, the Supreme Court heard hours of oral argument in what is likely to be one of the most significant cases of the term: the tariff case, Trump v. V.O.S. Selections. At issue is whether the phrase “regulate importation” in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) can be stretched to authorize the president to raise or lower tariff rates at will.

While it’s never possible to predict outcomes from oral arguments alone, the questions posed by the justices to both the U.S. Solicitor General and counsel for the importers were encouraging. Most justices appeared attentive to the risks of deferring to a president’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute and the executive branch “discovering” new powers in old statutes. The government’s reading of IEEPA not only stretches the text beyond recognition, but it also threatens the separation-of-powers principles central to our constitutional design.”

Cato filed an amicus brief in support of V.O.S. Selections and other importers.

To reach Brent or other Cato scholars, please contact esalamon@​cato.​org