In a twist of legal irony, a dissenting opinion penned by an Obama-era judge could end up paving the path for Donald Trump’s biggest courtroom win yet — the Supreme Court fight over his sweeping tariff powers.
At the heart of the case lies a decades-old law — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 — which Trump’s administration argues gives presidents wide leeway to impose tariffs during national emergencies. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court is set to confront that very question: can a president, under the guise of an emergency, rewrite the rules of global trade?
Though Trump’s team suffered a loss in the Federal Circuit Court, their legal playbook for the Supreme Court is drawn almost word-for-word from the dissent of Judge Richard Taranto — an Obama appointee who broke ranks with his peers. His 67-page opinion argued that Congress had intentionally granted the president vast powers over foreign economic threats, calling the law an “eyes-open congressional grant of broad emergency authority.”
That dissent now sits at the center of the Trump administration’s defense. Solicitor General D. John Sauer has invoked Taranto’s reasoning 16 times in filings, and is expected to anchor his Supreme Court arguments on the judge’s interpretation. Legal observers say Taranto’s stance — coming from the other side of the political divide — gives Trump’s argument an air of unexpected legitimacy.
“Taranto identified some serious legal flaws in the majority’s decision,” noted a law professor who filed a brief backing Trump. “It’s not surprising the administration is relying so heavily on his dissent.”
The stakes are colossal. The tariffs in dispute, imposed under Trump’s return to office, could influence trillions of dollars in customs duties and reshape global trade for years. Trump has wielded tariffs like a scalpel and a sledgehammer — using them to strike deals, pressure allies, and punish rivals.
When the Federal Circuit ruled against him in August, the decision split 7-4. Yet Taranto’s dissent — joined by three other judges, including two appointed by George W. Bush — fractured the predictable partisan pattern that has defined Trump’s courtroom showdowns.
Trump quickly appealed, denouncing the lower court as “highly partisan.” But his real ammunition came not from political rhetoric, but from Taranto’s words.
The challengers — a coalition of businesses and Democratic-led states — argue that Congress, not the president, has the constitutional authority to levy tariffs and taxes. They cite the “major questions doctrine,” a principle requiring Congress to clearly authorize any executive action with sweeping economic impact.
The Federal Circuit agreed, finding no clear congressional approval for Trump’s expansive tariff use. Taranto, however, rejected that reasoning, arguing that IEEPA’s language was plain and permissive: “We do not see IEEPA as anything but an eyes-open congressional choice to confer on the president broad authority to choose tools to restrict importation.”
Trump’s use of IEEPA to justify tariffs is unprecedented. The law, historically invoked to freeze assets or impose sanctions after events like 9/11, has never before been stretched to cover tariffs. But Trump declared the U.S. trade deficit — persistent since 1975 — a “national emergency,” using it as justification for the move.
Critics call it an abuse of power. Supporters call it innovation. The Supreme Court must now decide which it is.
For Trump, this isn’t just about trade — it’s about presidential muscle. And ironically, his strongest legal lifeline may come from the pen of a judge appointed by the very president whose policies he spent years dismantling.
