Americans for Prosperity recently published a report explaining why each summer Congress should legislatively respond to Supreme Court decisions interpreting federal statutes.
The report makes a simple point: when the Supreme Court interprets a statute, its job is to say what the law is—not what it should be. If Congress disagrees with the result and wants the statute to mean something else, the Constitution provides it with the tool to do so: amend the statute. Yet this legislative response remains chronically underused.
One statute that badly needs congressional attention is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”).
Background
IEEPA grants the president expansive powers if he declares an emergency. 50 U.S.C. § 1701(a) allows the president to declare an emergency with respect to an “unusual and extraordinary” threat from abroad “to the national security, foreign policy, or economy.” Under the National Emergencies Act (“NEA”), all the president must do to declare a national emergency is to issue a proclamation in the Federal Register and transmit it to Congress, 50 U.S.C. § 1621(a), which remains in effect until he chooses to end it, § 1621(b). 50 U.S.C. § Section 1702(a)(1)(B) authorizes the president to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation” to address the emergency. Historically, presidents have used IEEPA in geographically specific ways or to deal with human rights abuses and terrorism. In 2025, President Trump made unprecedented use of IEEPA to impose tariffs on nearly every other country. The issue in Learning Resources was whether IEEPA authorized this action.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Court ruled IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, reasoning that if Congress intended to grant him the power to impose tariffs it would have said so expressly and suggesting such a delegation may be unconstitutional. But the Court did not address limits on the President’s other IEEPA powers, including the ability to block importation outright.
AFP-Supported Congressional Response
Congress should drastically rewrite IEEPA. At minimum, it should be narrowed and limited in duration to allow Congress to vote and further constrain executive authority over tariffs and emergency powers. IEEPA remains ripe for abuse by future presidents. Congress should consider limiting the president’s power under the NEA as well.
Read more about the need for a congressional response to Supreme Court decisions here and about emergency power reform here.
James Valvo is chief policy counsel at Americans for Prosperity and coauthor of the report Congress Has the Floor.
