The Cato Institute is warning that the federal government is testing the outer limits of executive power with President Donald Trump’s use of emergency tariffs, and it wants the courts to put a stop to it.
In a new amicus brief filed in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Cato argues that the president overstepped his legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing steep tariffs on imports from countries including China, Mexico and Canada.
The libertarian thinktank argues the move undermines the Constitution’s separation of powers and expands executive authority over trade in ways Congress never intended.
‘This is an important case about whether the president can impose tariffs essentially whenever he wants,’ Cato Institute legal fellow Brent Skorup said in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital. ‘There has to be a limit — and this administration hasn’t offered one.’
‘Tariff rates went up to 145% on some products from China,’ he said. ‘And the president’s lawyers couldn’t offer a limiting principle. That tells you the administration believes there’s no real cap, and that’s a problem.’
Cato’s brief urges the appeals court to uphold a lower court ruling that found the tariffs exceeded the president’s statutory authority. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled earlier this year that the president’s use of IEEPA in this case was not legally authorized. The court said the law does not permit the use of tariffs as a general tool to fight drug trafficking or trade imbalances.
Skorup said in court the administration was unable to define a clear limit on its authority under IEEPA.
‘They couldn’t articulate a cap,’ he said. ‘There’s nothing in the law that mentions duties or tariffs. That’s a job for Congress.’
The administration has defended its actions, arguing that IEEPA provides the necessary tools for the president to act swiftly in times of national emergency. Trump officials maintain that both the fentanyl crisis and America’s trade vulnerabilities qualify.
‘There are real emergencies, no one disputes that,’ Skorup said. ‘But declaring an emergency to justify global tariffs or solve domestic trade issues goes far beyond what most Americans would recognize as a legitimate use of emergency powers.’
Skorup acknowledged that the real issue may be how much discretion Congress gave the president in the first place.
‘It’s a bipartisan problem. Presidents from both parties have taken vague laws and stretched them. Congress bears some of the blame for writing them that way,’ he said, adding that’s why courts should ‘step in and draw the line.’
For small businesses like V.O.S. Selections, the costs go beyond legal fees. Skorup said businesses who rely on imports, like V.O.S., have struggled to plan ahead as tariffs have been paused and reinstated repeatedly.
Skorup said there are several small businesses that rely on global imports and it becomes a ‘matter of survival’ when tariff rates change unexpectedly.
‘V.O.S. Selections imports wine and spirits and when the tariff rates go up unexpectedly, they can’t get products to their distributors as planned,’ he said. ‘And that’s true for others too, like pipe importers and specialized manufacturers. These companies don’t have the flexibility to absorb those costs or adjust overnight.’
If the appeals court sides with the administration, it could mark a major expansion of presidential power over trade policy. Skorup warned that such a ruling would allow future presidents to take similar actions with little oversight.
‘It would bless Congress’ ability to hand over immense economic power to the president,’ he said. ‘That would blur the separation of powers that the Constitution is supposed to protect.’
A decision from the appeals court is expected later this year.
The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.