E-Paper
Cases on Trump’s Powers Raise Stakes for Congress
If the president persuades courts on his expansive claims of authority, it would shrink the domain of the legislative branch.
WASHINGTON—When a federal appeals court recently rejected President Trump’s claim of unilateral authority to impose global tariffs, his loss was Congress’s gain.
“Tariffs are a core Congressional power,” the court wrote in its decision, saying Trump was intruding on the legislature’s prerogatives without clear authorization from lawmakers. Both the White House and its legal opponents want the Supreme Court to take up the matter this fall.
Similar battles are unfolding in courts across the U.S. Challenges to a host of aggressive actions by Trump are being framed largely about the reach—and limits—of presidential power. But in turn, many of the cases are also about the power of Congress, and how they are decided could have long-term ramifications for the legislative branch.
“When the president pushes the envelope, the other side of the envelope is Congress,” said Michael McConnell, a professor at Stanford Law School and a former federal judge.
More than 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration involve core questions about congressional authority. In one batch, states, recipients of government grants and fired workers are challenging the White House’s attempts to hollow out the Education Department, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and a dozen other government entities. Their cases all have similar central arguments: Trump can’t unilaterally dismantle agencies created and funded by Congress.
Other cases are challenging the administration’s tactics for withholding billions of dollars in funding appropriated by Congress, including for foreign aid and scientific research. One closely watched matter involving foreign-aid grants has bounced between different courts for weeks and is now making its third early trip to the Supreme Court.
The Trump administration is asking the justices to block a lower-court ruling that it says is interfering with its plans to hold back about $4 billion that was slated for foreign development assistance, peacekeeping efforts and other projects. Some of the grant recipients have accused the White House of attempting to run out the clock in court until the funds expire at the end of the month.
While Congress controls the power of the purse, Trump’s budget chief, Russell Vought, has said that the administration has extensive discretion over spending. He has argued that in many instances, when Congress appropriates funds, it is establishing a ceiling for how much the administration can pay out, not a floor.
In past administrations, when presidents were pushing bold unilateral action it was often in the face of divided control of government. What’s different here is that Trump is taking positions that would shrink the legislative branch at a time while his own party holds power in both chambers of Congress.
The Republican majority has largely gone along with Trump’s actions. Some have grumbled about specific issues such as TikTok, where Trump has delayed enforcing a law passed by Congress last year that required the app to be sold or shut down. GOP lawmakers have also tried to quietly resolve disputes over frozen spending, but the fight has more recently spilled into the open.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee who has sparred regularly with the White House on spending, said “any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law.”
Some GOP lawmakers have cheered Trump’s approach, particularly on spending cuts, even if it encroaches on their role.
“I’m willing to use any possible procedure for reducing spending,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) said. “I’ll support anything.”
Rep. Thomas Massie (R., Ky.) has been a rare dissident.
“I think Speaker [Mike] Johnson has given almost every power over to the executive branch,” he said. “The speaker’s just been a rubber stamp and turned off a lot of the responsibilities of Congress, and given those to the president.”
Observers from across the political spectrum say Republicans could regret their acquiescence during a future Democratic administration.
“If Congress is too weak in defending its prerogatives, there is a danger that delegations they may make now to a president they like will be used in ways they don’t like by a future president,” said Ilya Somin, a libertarian lawyer who helped bring the tariffs challenge. “But politicians tend to be short-term oriented.”
The president has already notched some clear wins at the expense of Congress, including in his efforts to fire a range of high-ranking government officials whose jobs Congress had sought to protect from political interference. The Supreme Court in several cases has allowed Trump to proceed with the dismissals for now, a signal that it is likely to overrule past precedent that said such officials could only be fired for cause.
In the tariff cases so far, judges have sided firmly with Congress, saying lawmakers never gave the president the broad authority he claims.
Cases about the gutting of government agencies remain in early stages.
In the Education Department case, U.S. Judge Myong Joun in Boston said the Trump administration’s actions crossed legal lines, but the Justice Department persuaded the Supreme Court to stay that ruling while litigation continues.
“The Executive Branch cannot unilaterally close the Department, but it retains significant authority to trim its workforce,” Solicitor General John Sauer told the high court in June.
Another battle has brewed over the administration’s move to take down a public database tracking the distribution of funds appropriated by Congress. A federal appeals court ordered officials to put it back up. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson said removing the database hindered Congress’s ability to track and monitor the money it has allocated.
While Republican lawmakers are watching the cases unfold, Democratic members of Congress have been filing friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the litigants suing Trump. In the Education Department case, 179 members signed the submission.
On the GOP side, such briefs have come from retired lawmakers.
In the tariff litigation, former Republican Sens. George Allen of Virginia, John Danforth of Missouri and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska urged judges to rein Trump in. Congress’s power over taxation and commerce, they said, was “a structural safeguard of democratic accountability.”
Write to Louise Radnofsky at louise.radnofsky@wsj.com and Jasmine Li at jasmine.li@wsj.com
