President Trump is looking to former President Nixon as proof that his global tariffs should be allowed to stand in court.
Roughly five decades ago, 10% duties unilaterally imposed by the 37th president as part of a set of economic measures dubbed the “Nixon shock” were challenged in court in much the same way as Trump’s 2025 tariffs have been.
The US Court of International Trade struck down many of Trump’s tariffs Wednesday (just as Nixon’s duties suffered an initial defeat_ and an appeals court on Thursday allowed Trump’s duties to temporarily stay in place while legal arguments continue.
What has emboldened the Trump administration is that the Nixon-era Justice Department eventually won its case on appeal, an outcome that the Trump administration cited in court documents this week, predicting that its legal saga would likely turn out the same way.
It told the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that “the Federal Circuit’s predecessor concluded that the very same language that today exists” in a law used by Trump to justify his tariffs “gave President Nixon the power to impose an import duty surcharge.”
It was in August 1971 that Nixon imposed his temporary 10% tariff in addition to standard duties on all imported goods.
Nixon said the duty was meant to help address the country’s escalating deficit crisis and slow the tide of imports, as an additional measure to the administration’s decision to suspend the US dollar’s convertibility to gold.
A Japanese zipper maker sued, saying Nixon lacked power to set the 10% tariff on foreign goods under three different laws that the government gave as justification: the Tariff Act, the Trade Expansion Act, and the Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA).
The most controversial of the justifications was the TWEA, a predecessor law to the 1977 International Economic Emergency Power Act that Trump cited as a basis for his multiple tariffs this year.
The US Customs Court, a predecessor to the US Court of International Trade, initially sided with the zipper importer, holding that none of the three laws were adequate authority for the duty.
Yet on appeal, Nixon’s tariffs were upheld. While the lower court reasoned that “neither need nor national emergency” justified Nixon’s tariff because Congress had not delegated such power and because the authority was “not inherent” in his office, the appeals court said the TWEA carved out enough power to regulate importation during an economic emergency.
The Trump administration argued that language in the TWEA law, carried over to the IEEPA, should likewise permit Trump’s tariffs.
Its lawyers went on to say that the US Court of International Trade incorrectly applied the Yoshida case by distinguishing the Nixon tariffs as more limited than those imposed by Trump.
In the Yoshida appeal, the court ruled that an emergency-based import duty must be appropriately and reasonably related to the emergency declared.
‘It’s just a question of when’
Jonathan Entin, a constitutional law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said it’s possible that Federal Circuit or Supreme Court judges will agree with the administration and conclude that the president does have broader authority than the Court of International Trade suggested.
Entin said the lower court focused on two kinds of concerns related to the president’s claimed authority under IEEPA.
One is the “nondelegation doctrine,” which says that Congress cannot give away its legislative authority, including its Constitutionally vested power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” to the president or executive branch officials.
A broad reading of IEEPA like the one that Trump suggests, he said, would raise real questions about whether Congress had essentially given away that authority.
Another concern before the court is the “major questions doctrine,” which has been recognized by the current Supreme Court to require Congressional approval for executive branch actions of “vast economic and political significance.”
“Those arguments clearly resonated with the court, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court would agree on this,” Entin said.
The administration also hinted at its strategy in citing a federal appeals court case in its request to pause the US Court of International Trade order.
In Florsheim Shoe Co. v. US, it said, the appeals court ruled that the president’s motives, reasoning, findings and judgment in his decision to remove duty-free status on imported buffalo leather were exempt from judicial scrutiny.
Seth Chandler, a constitutional law professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said he expects the dispute to end up before the Supreme Court.
“Obviously this issue has huge economic consequences, one way or the other,” he said. “It will probably get there. So it’s just a question of when.”
Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed.
Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance
